JUDGMENT 1. - A question of law involved in the present revision petition is as to whether the accused can be tried for the offence under rule 126-F or under rule 126 H of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 (for short, the Rules) in the year 1974 for the offences committed in April 10, 1966 because on the day of the alleged offences the Rules were no longer in force? 2. In pursuant of an information the Inspector of Central Excise Hindaun alongwith his staff visited the business premises of the accused petitioners situated in village Mahu on April 10, 1966. It was found that the accused petitioners were manufacturing gold ornaments from primary gold. On inquiry by the said Inspector, the two accused petitioners could not produce any certificate to carry on business as goldsmith, as required under rule 126 (HH) of the Defence of India (Amendment) rules, 1963 (for short, the Amendment rules) read with Notification No. 3/2/64-G(II) dated January 28, 1964. The primary gold and gold ornaments weighing 53 tolas 7 annas and 2 rattis, valued at about Rs. 9,000/- were found in the business premises and were seized. The accused petitioners could not produce any evidence or account for the lawful possession of the primary gold/gold ornaments It was given out by the accused petitioners on April 14, 1966 that they had no certificate or licence for the manufacture of gold ornaments. It was further stated that primary gold and gold ornaments seized from them on April 10, 1966 were their family property but they could not produce any documentary evidence in support of their contention. No document was produced regarding the declaration of primary gold recovered from them. As a result of the above facts, it appeared that the accused petitioners contravened the provisions of Rule 126(G), 126 (I) and 126 (HH) of the Amendment rules read with notification dated January 28, 1964. A show cause notice dated August 31, 1966 was issued to the accused petitioners by the Superintendent (Tech) Central Excise, Ajmer whereby both the accused petitioners were called upon to explain the acquisition/ possession of the contraband seized gold and as to why the same should not be confiscated under the Amendment Rules. The Deputy Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Jaipur vide his order dated July 13, 1971, ordered the release of the gold ornaments listed at S. Nos. The Deputy Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Jaipur vide his order dated July 13, 1971, ordered the release of the gold ornaments listed at S. Nos. 2 to 8 of the complaint P/4, but ordered the confiscation of 6 pieces of primary gold weighing 18 Tolas 6 annas 2 rattis under rule 126 (M) of the Amendment rules, and a personal penalty of Rs. 50/- was imposed under rule 1269(6) of the Amendment rules. A complaint was filed stating the above facts and it was stated therein that the accused petitioners have contravened the provisions of rule 126 P(2) as they were found in possession of primary gold in contravention of rule 126-1 and 126 (H). It was further stated that the accused petitioners have committed the offence under section 85 of the Gold Control Act, 1968 (for short, the Act). The sanction and authorisation of the Collector of Customs and Central Excise was also taken before filing the complaint and the same was annexed with the complaint. 3. The accused petitioners were tried by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Sawai Madhopur for the offences under Section 85 of the Act. The accused petitioners pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under his judgment dated November, 29, 1978 convicted each of the accused petitioners under section 5(2)(d) of the Gold Control Act, 1965 (for short, the 1965 Act) observing that the accused petitioners have contravened the provisions of section 31 (2) (ii) of the 1965 Act which is equivalent to section 8(iii) of the Act, and sentenced each of them to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs 50/-or in default of payment of fine, to further suffer one months simple imprisonment. 4. Both the accused petitioners filed an appeal against their conviction and sentence before the learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur and the learned Sessions Judge under his judgment dated April 8, 1981, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of conviction and sentence and remanded the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to proceed further in the matter from the stage of charge. In the said judgment the learned Sessions judge observed that there was no charge under section 5(2) (d) of the 1965 Act and therefore the accused could not have been convicted on a charge of which he had no notice and a charge has not been framed against them. 5. After the remand of the case, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate framed charges under rule 126F (2) of the Rules, read with Amendment rules as well as section 85 of the Act & it is that order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated January 5, 1982 ordering the framing of charges and framing the charges which has been challenged by the accused petitioners in this revision petition in this court. 6. The main challenge to the order framing charges as well as the charges is on the ground that the Rules or amendment rules had been repealed and were not in force on February 29, 1974 when a complaint was filed. Therefore, no charge could have been framed for the rules or the Act were not in force and had ceased to be in force. 7. There is no dispute that the business premises of the accused-petitioners were visited by the Inspector, Central Excise and others on April 10, 1966 and a complaint was filed on March 29, 1974. The Act was not in force when the business premises were visited as stated above and when the contravention of the provisions of the Rules read with Amendment rules was detected. But notwithstanding the repeal of the Rules or the Amendment Rules, the liabilities under them continued and a complaint could still be filed even in the year 1974. The Rules were amended by the Amendment rules which were published on January 9, 1963 and by the Amendment rules a new part XII A consisting of rules 126A to 126-Z had been inserted. The aforesaid Amendment Rules deal with control of gold in any shape of form of a purity of not less than nine carats and the same are intended to regulate the business of power-operated refineries and the declaration and to keep a constant watch over them. The aforesaid Amendment Rules deal with control of gold in any shape of form of a purity of not less than nine carats and the same are intended to regulate the business of power-operated refineries and the declaration and to keep a constant watch over them. Rule 126-1 of the Amendment rules as it stands after the amendment by the Amendment Rules requires declarations as to possession of gold other than ornament and provides that every person not being a dealer or refiner required to apply for a licence, or licensed or a refiner licensed under this part (Part XII-A) shall within thirty days from the commencement of this part make a declaration to the Board in the prescribed form as to the quantity description and other prescribed particulars of gold (other than ornament) owned by him. The contravention of rule 126-F and I has been made punishable under rule 126-P of the rules read with Amendment rules. 8. The 1965 act received the assent of the President on September 22, 1965 and was published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary part II, Section 1 dated September, 23, l965. Section 43 of the 1965 Act is a repeal and savings Sub-s. (3) of section 1 of the aforesaid Act provides that it shall come into force on such date as the Central Government by notification in the official gazette appoint but no date appears to have been specified and therefore that Act never came into force. In the case of Jayantilal Amratlal Sheodhan v. The Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Pinance. New Delhi and others , Special Civil Application No. 216/1969 the Gujarat High Court in its judgment dated July 1969, dealt with the question whether consequent upon the repeal of the Gold (Control) Ordinance of 1968 and the repeal of the Ordinance by the Gold (control) Act, 1968, the action initiated in respect of gold seized during the currency of the Defence of India Rules could survive after its repeal or not. In that case the gold was seized in November, 1964 under the Rules but the case remained unadjudicated till the Defence of India Jkules were replaced by Gold (Control) Ordinance in which section 117(1) provided that "as from the commencement of this Ordinance the provisions of part XII-A of the Defence of India Rules, 1969 shall stand repealed and upon such repeal section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, shall apply as if the said part were a Central Act". Sub-section 2 provided for continuance of action initiated under the Rules under the Ordinance. When the ordinance was repealed by the Gold (Control) Act, the reference to the General Clauses Act was not made. An argument was raised that when the Gold (Control) Act repealed the Gold (Control) ordinance including the section 117 (1) according to common law doctrine the effect of the repeal was to obliterate Section 117(1) as completely as if it had never been enacted so that the applicability of section 6 of General Clauses Act to the repeal of the Gold Control rules was completely wiped out and therefore proceedings for confiscation of the gold could not continue. It had been further contended that even if section 6 of the General Clauses Act was applicable the liability to confiscation being incurred under the Gold Control Rules and not under the Gold (Control) Ordinance, the case was not covered by any of the clauses of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act and therefore with the repeal of Section 117 (1) of the Ordinance, the proceedings for confiscation could not continue. The Gujarat High Court held that:- "When the repeal of the law is followed by a fresh legislation on the same subject we would have to look to the provisions of the new Act for the purpose of determining whether they indicate a different intention. In considering this question the line of enquiry would be not whether the new Act expressly keeps alive the old rights and liabilities but whether it exhibits an intention to destroy them. In considering this question the line of enquiry would be not whether the new Act expressly keeps alive the old rights and liabilities but whether it exhibits an intention to destroy them. Section 6 would apply unless the new legislation main fests an intention incompatible with or contrary to the provisions of the section." The High Court applied the aforesaid test and held the repeal of the Gold (Control) Ordinance by Section 116 (1) of the Gold (Control) Act did not have the effect of putting an end to the proceedings instituted for the confiscation of the gold under the Defence of India Rules. Against the aforesaid judgment an appeal was filed in the Supreme Court and it, in Jayantilal Amaratlal v. The Union of India & Ors., AIR 1971 SC 1193 , held that no provision in the Act being inconsistent with rule 126 (1) (10) of the Gold Control Rules, 1963, notice under the rule initiating proceedings for forefeiture of seized gold must be deemed to continue by virtue of section 6 of the General Clauses Act on repeal of Gold (Control) Ordinance, 1968, which had protected the action taken under the Gold control rules. The Supreme Court agreed with the Gujarat High Court that while ascertaining whether the rights and liabilities under the repealed law have been put an end to by the new enactment the proper approach is not to enquire if the new enactment has by its new provisions kept alive the rights and liabilities under the repealed law but whether it has taken away those rights and liabilities. It may be stated that though sub-section (3) of section 1 of 1965 Act provides that it shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may be notification in the Official Gazette appoint, it appears that no date as required under sub section (3) of section 1 of the 1965 Act was notified and therefore 1965 Act never came in to force. This matter has been dealt with by a Division Bench of Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Ramesh Chandra v. The Superintendent Customs & Another, 1975 Cr. L.J. 739 , the learned Judges have said in para 12 that:- "Then came the "Gold Control Act, 1965" (No. 18 of 1965) which was enacted by the Parliament on September, 21, 1963. This matter has been dealt with by a Division Bench of Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Ramesh Chandra v. The Superintendent Customs & Another, 1975 Cr. L.J. 739 , the learned Judges have said in para 12 that:- "Then came the "Gold Control Act, 1965" (No. 18 of 1965) which was enacted by the Parliament on September, 21, 1963. This Act was not, however, brought into force by the Central Government under section 1 (3) of the said Act. The Defence of India (fourth Amendment) rules of November 1, 1966 amended the Defence of India Rules, 196'as contained in Chapter XII thereof. On January 10, 1968, the President withdrew the proclamation of emergency. Thereafter the Gold (Control) ordinance was promulgated by the President on June 29,1968. That ordinance repealed part XII-A of the rules and the provisions therein were replaced by the provisions of the Ordinance. Section 117 of the Ordinance which dealt with Repeals and savings provided. Thus, when 1965 Act had not come into force there was no question of section 43 being applicable and the Rules as they stood after the amended by the Amendment rules were still in force and it was only by the Gold control Ordinance, that Part XX of the Rules was replaced but notwithstanding such repeal the rights and liabilities under the Rules were not taken away. Though, in the case of Ramesh Chander (supra) a view has been taken that sub-section (2) of Section 116 contains nothing which can be said to have saved the liabilities under the Rules which were replaced by the Gold (Control) Rules, 1968, but that view cannot be said to be correct in view of the Jayantilals case (supra). Thus, I am of the opinion that notwithstanding the repeal of the rules as they stood after the Amendment rules, it cannot be said that they have taken away the rights and liabilities under the rules. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that in 1974 when the complaint was filed, the rules stood repealed, the liabilities incurred thereunder could still be continued as they had not been taken away. The accused petitioners could be charged under rule 126-P for contravention of Rules 126-H and 126-I. 9. Consequently, there is no force in this revision petition. It is hereby dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******