1. This is a petition under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. For quashment of the proceeding of a criminal case started against the petitioner on a direct com--plaint flied by one Mohammad Umar for offence under section 420, P. P. C.
2. On the facts briefly are that the petitioner obtained transfer of shop No. 11-A 94, Shahdadpur from the Settlement Department in the year 1959. A Permanent Transfer Deed was issued to the petitioner on 4-7-1963. The respondent, a resident of Shahdadpur, filed a complaint against the petitioner stating that the petitioner who was a Local resident of Shahdadpur was not a displaced person from India and he had got the transfer of this shop by misrepresentation and fraud by filing a false claim; that he may accordingly be dealt with under the Law. The Additional City Magistrate, Shahdadpur, issued process namely, bailable warrants in the sum of Rs. 1,000 against the petitioner and brought the case to regular file.
3. Under the scheme of the Displaced Persons Act, a provision had been made against harassment of the persons applying for transfer of evacuee property whether as claimant or non-claimant. Under section 27 of the Displaced Persons Act, 1958, a penalty was provided for the applicants furnishing false information or concealing or misrepresenting facts in their applications for transfer of any property of which they were not actually entitled. But under section 28 a safeguard was provided that no Court shall take cognizance of any office punishable under section 27 save upon a complaint in writing made by an officer appointed under the Act. Thus, a private person could not make an allegation that the transfer of evacuee property had been obtained by any particular person from the settlement authority by fraud or misrepresentation. The transferees had thus, acquired this right that they would not be harassed by private prosecution on the ground of fraud or cheating. After the act was implemented and almost all the property had been transferred and settled and Permanent Transfer Deeds issued in respect of them, it was not considered necessary to keep the Displaced Persons Act on the Statute Book. It was accordingly repealed by Ordinance XV of 1974. After this repeal the respondent has filed a private complaint attacking the transfer of a shop to the petitioner and alleging that the same was obtained by fraud as the petitioner claimed himself to be a Displaced Person from Jesalmir, Rajputana, but he was in fact a local resident having been born in Shahdadpur.
4. The question arises, whether such a complaint for offence of cheating under section 420, P. P. C.
5. Would now be maintainable after the repeal of the Displaced Persons Act and the relevant provision under the Act barring filing of that complaint by private person for misrepresentation etc. Under section 6(c) of the General Clauses Act, where any enactment is repealed then unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not affect any right, privilege obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enact--ment so repealed.
6. The question as to whether an offence was committed or not, depends on the state of law when the offence was committed and not on the law as it is on the date on which the prosecution is started. In the case of Penal provisions, a person who commits an offence becomes liable, the moment the offence is committed. If a complaint by a private person could not be filed against that man at the time he committed the offence because of certain safeguards or rights acquired by him, then that complaint could not be filed 15 years afterwards because, the enactment providing the safeguard had been repealed. The petitioner had acquired a right not to be harassed by private persons for acquiring transfer of that shop. This right could not be taken away 15 years thereafter, merely because by that time the Act in which the right had occurred ceased to exist. It was not just a procedural right which could not be preserved after the law which conferred the right had been altered or repealed. Had it been so then all the aggrieved persons who could not file any prosecution at that time because of the bar under sec--petition 28, could file a prosecution now for their own satisfaction.
7. The learned counsel on behalf of the State has referred me to Privy Council case, John Lemur v.
8. Thommes Alexender Mitchell (1912AC400(HL)). In that judgment an observation of Tindal, J. In Kay v.
9. Woodwin has been quoted "I take the effect of repealing a statute to be, to obliterate it as completely from the records of the Parliament as if it had never been passed; and it must be considered as law that never existed, except for the purpose of those actions which were commenced, prosecuted and concluded whilst it was an existing law".
10. However, in the very same judgment a qualification or exception has been emphasised, that this observation must not be taken to deprive persons of vested rights acquired by them under the repealed law. Vested rights cannot be affected by the repeal of an Act in the absence of express provisions to that effect. If the liability for being prosecuted by a direct complaint by a private person for offence of cheating was not incurred at the time the transfer was obtained, any such liability would not arise now after 15 years after the Displaced Persons Act is repealed.
11. None of the transfers made permanent can thus be called in question now, nor can the transferees be prosecuted on the complaint of private persons as that will affect the vested rights of the parties.