Judgment :- This memorandum of criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 08.08.2008, and made in C.C.No.1986 of 2002, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai, acquitting the first and second accused as the offence under Section 39(1) and 44(1)(c) of Indian Electricity Act have not been proved by the prosecuting agency beyond all reasonable doubts. Challenging the legality of the judgment, the complainant has approached this Court by way of this criminal revision. 2. For easy reference, the appellant herein may hereinafter be referred to as the complainant and the respondents herein may hereinafter be referred to as the first and second accused. 3. The related facts and circumstances which giving rise to the memorandum of criminal revision may be summarised very briefly as follows:- 3.1. The service connection bearing No.58 tariff was provided to Lakshmi prawns at Karanguda village from Sempaipattinam power transformer. The service connection No.58 tariff which was given in the name of one Periyasamy of Sempaipattinam, had been consumed by the first and second accused. That on 27.05.2002 at about 8.15 p.m. P.W.1 Assistant Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Peravoorani, had inspected the said service connection bearing No.58 tariff. While so, the seal of the meter fixed in the above said service connection was found damaged, meter box glass was found broken and the ten thousand digit was also found to be tampered. Besides this, five 10 H.P. Motors and twenty two 40 Watts tube lights were found to have been fitted with the above said service connection. It was also detected that from 18.08.2001 to 27.05.2002 96,673 units of power was stolen and the value of the power theft was estimated at Rs.8,49,713/-. 3.2. In this regard, P.W.1 had lodged a complaint under Ex.P1 before P.W.6 Sub Inspector of Police attached to Sethupavasathiram police station. On receipt of the complainant, a case came to be registered in Sethupavasathiram Police Station Crime No.127 of 2002 under Section 39(1) and 44(1) (c) Indian Electricity Act and subsequently, the investigation of this case was taken up by P.W.7 S.Ganesamurthy, Inspector of Police attached to the above said Police Station. On completion of investigation, P.W.7 had laid a final report on 03.09.2002 under Section 39(1) and 44(1)(c) of Indian Electricity Act as against the first and second accused. After framing necessary charges the accused were put on trial. On completion of investigation, P.W.7 had laid a final report on 03.09.2002 under Section 39(1) and 44(1)(c) of Indian Electricity Act as against the first and second accused. After framing necessary charges the accused were put on trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecuting agency had totally examined seven witnesses. During the course of their examination, Exs.P1 to P12 and M.Os.1 to 4 were marked. When the incriminating circumstances arising out of the testimonies were read over and explained under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the first and second accused had denied the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. No oral evidence was adduced on their behalf excepting the documentary evidences under Exs.D1 to D3. 3.3. On appreciation of the evidences both oral and documentary, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai, had acquitted the first and second accused from the charges under Section 39(1) and 44 (1)(c) of the Indian Electricity Act. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has preferred this criminal revision. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant while advancing his argument has submitted that when the case was registered and the investigation was taken up by P.W.7, the Indian Electricity Act 1910 was not amended and therefore, there was no impediment to continue the investigation. Subsequently, the Indian Electricity Act 1910 was repealed in view of the fact that the Electricity Act 2003 came into force on 10.06.2003 and the old acts were repealed under Section 185 of the Electricity Act 2003. He has also submitted that there were a few savings but they would not be applicable to the present revision case. 5. He would further submit that the Indian Electricity Act 1910 was not in vogue or in existence on 08.08.2008, on which date, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai, had pronounced the judgment acquitting the accused. In this connection, he would submit further that the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai, was having no competency to pronounce the judgment on 08.08.2008 when the Electricity Act 1910 was not in existence at that time. 6. According to the Electricity Act 2003, the theft of energy shall be dealt with sternly under Section 135 of the Electricity Act 2003. The Investigating Officer without knowing this new development of law had continued the investigation as per the old Act and charge-sheeted against the accused in accordance with the provisions of old Act. 6. According to the Electricity Act 2003, the theft of energy shall be dealt with sternly under Section 135 of the Electricity Act 2003. The Investigating Officer without knowing this new development of law had continued the investigation as per the old Act and charge-sheeted against the accused in accordance with the provisions of old Act. He should have charge-sheeted against the accused under the amended Electricity Act 2003. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant has also maintained that according to the Electricity Act 2003, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai, was not empowered to try the electricity theft cases after the new Electricity Act 2003 came into force. He had continued further that as contemplated under Section 153 of the Indian Electricity Act 2003, Special Courts were constituted and as per the proviso to Section 154 of the new Act, the Special Courts are alone empowered to try the cases registered for the offences under Sections 135 to 139. As per the new Act, the learned Judicial Magistrate should have transferred the case to the Special Court at Thanjavur (Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur) and that the trial proceedings taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate in the case in C.C.No.1986 of 2002 and passing of judgment in the said case on 08.08.2008 are completely vitiated as he is not having jurisdiction to try and pronounce the judgment after 10.06.2003, from which date onwards the amended Act 2003 came into force. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant had continued further and made reference to the proviso to Section 154 (2) of the Electricity Act 2003. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant had continued further and made reference to the proviso to Section 154 (2) of the Electricity Act 2003. Section 154(2) of the Act 2003 reads as follows: “Where it appears to any Court in the course of any inquiry or trial that an offence punishable under [Sections 135 to 140 and Section 150] in respect of any offence that the case is one which is triable by a Special Court constituted under this Act for the area in which such case has arisen, it shall transfer such case to such Special Court, and thereupon such case shall be tried and disposed of by such Special Court in accordance with the provisions of this Act: Provided that it shall be lawful for such Special Court to act on the evidence, if any, recorded by any Court in the presence of the accused before the transfer of the case to any Special Court: Provided further that if such Special Court is of opinion that further examination, cross-examination and re-examination of any of the witnesses whose evidence has already been recorded, is required in the interest of justice, it may re-summon any such witness and after such further examination, cross-examination or re-examination, if any, as it may permit, the witness shall be discharged.” 9. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant has added further that the Special Courts were constituted in various districts of Tamil Nadu on 05.10.2006 including Thanjavur District and the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, was empowered as a Special Judge of the Special Court to try the offences related to theft of energy. He has maintained further that the Electricity Act 2003 came into force on 10.06.2003 and even after that the Magistrate had continued the trial and pronounced the judgment on 08.08.2008 which is in total negation of the object of the amendment of the Act. 10. The complaint under Ex.P1 with regard to the theft of energy was lodged with P.W.1 Sub Inspector of Police, Sethupavasathiram Police Station on 27.05.2002, investigation was taken up by P.W.7 anda final report was laid by him on 03.09.2002. The accused were tried for the offences under Sections 39(1) and 44(1)(c) of the Indian Electricity Act. The judgment of acquittal was pronounced by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai, on 08.08.2008. The accused were tried for the offences under Sections 39(1) and 44(1)(c) of the Indian Electricity Act. The judgment of acquittal was pronounced by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai, on 08.08.2008. The judgment dated 08.08.2008 was vehemently attacked by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant on the ground that the learned Judicial Magistrate, was not having jurisdiction to try and pronounce the judgment in the case in C.C.No.1986 of 2002. 11. The learned counsel while advancing his argument had made reference to the notification dated 08.06.2005 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Power. In this notification, Rule 2 of Electricity Rules 2005 defines the jurisdiction of the Courts.In clause 3 of Statement of objects and reasons for amending the Indian Electricity Act 1910, it is stated as follows: “With the policy of encouraging private sector participation in generation, transmission and distribution and the objective of distancing the regulatory responsibilities from the Government to the Regulatory Commission, the need for harmonising and rationalising the provisions in the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and the Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998 in a new self contained comprehensive legislation arose. Accordingly, it became necessary to enact a new legislation for regulating the electricity supply industry in the country which would replace the existing laws, ... 12. In sub clause (xiii) to clause 4 of the Statement of objects and reasons, it is stated that provisions relating to theft of electricity have a revenue focus. Accordingly, the Act was amended and came into force on and from 10.06.2003. As already observed, the first and second accused were charge-sheeted under Section 39(1) and 44(1)(c) of Indian Electricity Act. The penal section 39 with regard to the theft of energy has its application to the State of Tamil Nadu prior to the amendment in the year 2003 seems to have been substituted by Act 31 of 1986 for the former Section 39. Similarly, in its application to the State of Tamil Nadu, Section 44 was renumbered as Sub-section (1) and after clause (a) of the renumbered sub-section clause (aa) vide Tamil Nadu Act No.39 of 1980 under Section 5 (w.e.f. 12th December, 1980). It is thus clear that at the time of commission of the offences of energy theft, the Investigating Officer had to necessarily file charge sheet under Section 39(1) and 44(1)(c) of Indian Electricity Act 1910. 13. It is thus clear that at the time of commission of the offences of energy theft, the Investigating Officer had to necessarily file charge sheet under Section 39(1) and 44(1)(c) of Indian Electricity Act 1910. 13. The Government of India, Ministry of Power, New Delhi, had issued a notification on 08.06.2005. It appears from the face of this notification that under Rule 11 of Electricity Rules, 2005, the jurisdiction of the Courts other than the Special Courts shall not be barred under sub-section (1) of Section 154 till such time the Special Court is constituted under sub-section (1) of Section 153 of the Act. In Rule No.12 it is stated about the taking of cognizance of offence. In accordance with sub rule (1) to Rule 12 of Electricity Rule 2005, the police shall take cognizance of the offence punishable under the Act on a complaint in writing made to the police by the Appropriate Government or the Appropriate Commission or any of their officer authorised by them in this regard or a Chief Electrical Inspector or an Electrical Inspector or an authorised officer of Licensee or a Generating Company, as the case may be. In Sub-rule (2) to Rule 12, it is stated that the police shall investigate the complaint in accordance with the general law applicable to the investigation of any complaint. For the purposes of investigation of the complaint, the police shall have all the powers as available under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). Sub-rule (3) to Rule 12 says that the police shall, after investigation, forward the report along with the complaint filed under sub-clause (1) to the Court for trial under the Act. 14. It also appears that the Additional Director General of Police/Vigilance K.Natarajan had addressed a letter in a letter (No.036319/B12/AEE-2/2005-2, dated 14.07.2005) to the Chief Engineers/Distribution/Regions, on the subject: TNEB – Electricity Act, 2003 – Notification issued by the Ministry of Power, Government of India – Jurisdiction of Courts and Powers of Police. 14. It also appears that the Additional Director General of Police/Vigilance K.Natarajan had addressed a letter in a letter (No.036319/B12/AEE-2/2005-2, dated 14.07.2005) to the Chief Engineers/Distribution/Regions, on the subject: TNEB – Electricity Act, 2003 – Notification issued by the Ministry of Power, Government of India – Jurisdiction of Courts and Powers of Police. Clause 4 of the letter reads as follows: “This Notification contains among other provisions, the following two important provisions: a) The regular Courts are not barred till such time special Courts are formed to deal with power theft cases.(Clause 11) b) The police will continue to receive complaints from the EB officials about power theft investigate and file charge sheet in the Court as it was done earlier.(Clause 12) The arrangement will continue even after formation of Special Courts. 15. It will also be appropriate to refer the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board abstract in Per.B.P.(CH) No.362 Technical Branch, dated 25.08.2005. In Clause 3 of the abstract, it is stated as follows: “Therefore, under rule 12 of the Electricity Rules, 2005, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board hereby authorizes all the Superintending Engineers, Executive Engineers, Assistant Executive Engineers of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, of the respective jurisdiction to make complaint to the Police having jurisdiction as provided in sub-rule (1), or to file complaint directly in the Special Court concerned as provided in sub-rule (4) of rule 12, of the said Rules, when an offence referred to in any of the Sections 135 to 139 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (Central Act 36 of 2003) is committed or reasonably suspected of having committed.” 16. Thereafter, under G.O.(Ms) No.102, Energy (B1) Department, dated 05.10.2006, the Tamil Nadu Government had issued an order constituting Special Courts in 27 Districts including Thanjavur appointing the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, as the Special Judge for trying the offences relating to energy theft. Thereafter, under G.O.(Ms) No.102, Energy (B1) Department, dated 05.10.2006, the Tamil Nadu Government had issued an order constituting Special Courts in 27 Districts including Thanjavur appointing the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, as the Special Judge for trying the offences relating to energy theft. On the basis of the above referred proceedings, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant has urged before this Court that in pursuant to the constitution of Special Court at Thanjavur in G.O.(Ms)No.102, Energy (B1) Department, dated 05.10.2006, the case in C.C.No.1986 of 2002 should not have been tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai and ought to have been transferred to the Special Court at Thanjavur and therefore, the trial and the judgment passed by the learned Judicial magistrate dated 08.08.2008 have been vitiated and liable to be set aside. 17. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant in order to fortify his argument has placed reliance upon the following unreported judgement of this court. 1) Crl.O.P.(MD) No.5633 of 2007 (C.Kathirvelu v. D.Thillairaj and two others) 18. On careful perusal of this judgment it is decided that it is not made applicable to the instant case on hand. The learned counsel has also placed reliance upon another decision of this court reported in - 19. The excerpts of the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant is, that the Indian Electricity Act 1910 was repealed by the Electricity Act, 2003 and that the Electricity Act 1910 was not in force on the date of pronouncement of the judgment on 08.08.2008. As the Electricity Act, 2003 came into force on and from 10.06.2003, the learned Judicial Magistrate had no locus standi to pronounce the judgment. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant has also made reference to the Section 151 of Electricity Act, 2003. Section 151 of the Act may be extracted as under: i) The Assistant Executive Engineer Vs. A.V.K.Velayutha Raja and another [2008(2)T.N.L.R.146 (Mad) (MB)]. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant has also made reference to the Section 151 of Electricity Act, 2003. Section 151 of the Act may be extracted as under: i) The Assistant Executive Engineer Vs. A.V.K.Velayutha Raja and another [2008(2)T.N.L.R.146 (Mad) (MB)]. “Section 151 Cognisance of offence – No Court shall take cognisance of an offence punishable under this Act except upon a complaint in writing made by the Appropriate Government or Appropriate Commission or any of their officer authorised by them or a Chief Electrical Inspector or an Electrical Inspector or licensee or the generating company, as the case may be, for this purpose: Provided that the court may also take cognisance of an offence punishable under this Act upon a report of a police officer filed under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974): Provided further that a Special Court constituted under section 153 shall be competent to take cognizance of an offence without the accused being committed to it for trial. (Inserted by the Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2007 (26 of 2007) Section 15 (w.e.f. 15.06.2007).” 20. The learned counsel has also sought the assistance of Section 151-A of the Act - Power of Police to investigate – it reads as follows: For the purposes of investigation of an offence punishable under this Act, the police officer shall have all the powers as provided in Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). (Inserted by the Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2007 (26 of 2007), Section 16 (w.e.f. 15.06.2007). 21. It is obvious to note here that under G.O.(Ms)No.102, Energy (B1) Department, dated 05.10.2006 a Special Court has been constituted for trying the offences relating to the theft of energy. This Government Order dated back to 05.10.2006. 22. on the above background it is, therefore, imperate on the part of this Court to take solution on the prime question as to whether the Magistrate was not empowered to conduct trial and pronounce the judgment in the case in C.C.No.1986 of 2002 even after the constitution of a Special Court at Thanjavur under the above said Government Order. 23. Countering the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant, the learned counsel appearing for the first and second accused has submitted that obviously the judgment in the case in C.C.No.1986 of 2002 was pronounced on 08.08.2008. 23. Countering the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant, the learned counsel appearing for the first and second accused has submitted that obviously the judgment in the case in C.C.No.1986 of 2002 was pronounced on 08.08.2008. If at all any revision is required to be made that should be made by the State. But, in the revision petition, the State has not been included as a party. But in the short cause title it is stated as “State (TNEB) rep. by Inspector of Police, Athiramapattinam Station, Sethupavasathiram Police Station, Thanjavur District (Crime No.127 of 2002)”. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the accused would submit that since the State has not been impleaded as a party, the revision petition shall be rejected in limini. 24. He would submit further that since the case was ended in acquittal, the complainant wanted to file this revision with some ulterior motive to stall the proceedings which are going to be taken by the first and second accused. While advancing his argument, the learned counsel for the accused has also made reference to Section 185 of the Electricity Act 2003. Section 185 reads as follows: “185. Repeal and saving – (1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (9 of 1910), the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (54 of 1948) and the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998 (14 of 1998) are hereby repealed. (2) Notwithstanding such repeal,– (a) anything done or any action taken or purported to have been done or taken including any rule, notification, inspection, order or notice made or issued or any appointment, confirmation or declaration made or any licence, permission, authorisation or exemption granted or any document or instrument executed or any direction given under the repealed laws shall, insofar as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act; Sub-section (5) to Section 185 of the Act reads as follows: “Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), the mention of particular matters in that section, shall not be held to prejudice or affect the general application of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), with regard to the effect of repeals.” 25. The learned counsel appearing for the accused has proceeded further and submitted that the complainant/ the Electricity Department has only come forward with this revision after allowing the case to be tried by the Magistrate. He would submit further that the facts of repealing of the Act 1910 and the constitution of Special Courts as per G.O.(Ms)No.102, Energy (B1) Department, dated 05.10.2006, ought to have been brought to the notice of the Court either by the learned Public Prosecutor who conducted the case on behalf of the State or by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. But, they have miserably failed to bring it to the notice of the Court. 26. With regard to finding the answer for the question as to whether the trial Court can take cognisance of the offence, try the case and pronounce the judgment, the learned counsel appearing for the accused has made reference to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act also. In this regard, he would submit that any case which is already pending trial or already decided need not be re-agitated as contemplated under Section 6 of General Clauses Act. It may be better to extract the proviso to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. “Section 6. Effect of Repeal.– Where this Act, or any [Central Act] or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not – (a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; or (b) affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered there under; or (c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or (d) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed; or (e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid; and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the repealing Act or Regulation had not been passed. (Emphasis supplied) 27. (Emphasis supplied) 27. On the guiding light of the proviso to Section 6(e) of the General Clauses Act, the learned counsel appearing for the accused has canvassed that though the Indian Electricity Act 1910 was repealed by the Electricity Act 2003, the trial proceedings in the case in C.C.No.1986 of 2002 and consequently the judgment which was delivered on 08.08.2008 will not be affected as the acts done by the learned Judicial Magistrate have been rightly protected by Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. Further, he would argue that the powers of the Magistrate have not been fettered from pronouncing the judgment on 08.08.2008 as contemplated under Section 6(e) of the General Clauses Act as if the repealing Act or regulation had not been passed. 28. In order to substantiate his argument, he has placed reliance upon the following decisions: 1. Gangadhar Narasingdas Agarwal and others v. The Union of India, represented by the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi and others ( 1967 MLJ 197 ). 2. State by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, C.I.D. Headquarters Unit, Madras – 4 v. S.Thirunavukkarasu and another (1992 L.W.(Cri.) 625). 3. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd., v. Amrit Lal & Co and another (in Civil Appeal No.5706 of 2001) with Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd., v. Amrit Lal & Co. and another (in Civil Appeal No.5707 of 2001) (2001) 8 SCC 397 . 4. O.Abdul Aziz and others v. Additional Director of Enforcement, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi. [1982 II MLJ 359]. 5. Jagan M. Seshadri v. State of Tamil Nadu ( AIR 2002 SC 2399 ) 29. In Gangadhar Narasingdas Agarwal and others ( 1967 MLJ 197 ), in pursuant to the notification dated 4th August 1947 issued by the Central Government the validity of Section 12(1) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (VII of 1947 of the Act) was brought in question. In this case, writ petitions were filed under Article 226 and 226(1-A) of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated therein in each petition and in the affidavits filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to issue writs of Prohibition in each petition prohibiting the respondents in all the petitions from taking any action in pursuance of the show cause notice dated 17th February, 1965. The show cause notices were issued by the Deputy Collector of Customs, Visakhapatnam, calling upon the petitioners to show cause in writing to the Collector of Customs as to why penalties should not be imposed upon them under Section 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, for being persons concerned in the export of Manganese Ores from Visakhapatnam in contravention of the restrictions and prohibitions, imposed under Section 19 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, read with Section 12(1) and the Notification No.12(17)F.1/47 dated the 4th August 1947 (as amended) issued thereunder, and Section 23-A of the Foreign exchange Regulation Act, 1947. 30. A contention was raised in the above cited case that the notification of the Central Government, dated 4th August, 1947, issued under Section 12(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act prohibiting the export of “all” goods is contrary to the powers vested in the Government on the ground that what section 12(I) empowered was to prohibit the export of “any” goods or class of goods and not “all” goods as done by the notification, is without force. It was also contended that Section 23-A of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was amended by Act LV of 1964 and the provisions which deemed the restriction imposed by sub-section (1) of Section 12 to have been imposed under Section 19 of the Sea Customs Act had been repealed. The amended section provides that the restrictions imposed by sub-section (1) of Section 12 and other sub-sections referred to shall be deemed to be have been imposed under section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962. It was further pointed out that after the repeal of the Sea Customs Act 1878, by Customs Act LII of 1962 no further proceedings can be taken for contravention of the provisions of Section 12(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act before the amendments were introduced. 31. Under these circumstances, it was concluded by this Court that the offences relate to export of mineral ores in 1956 and 1957 long before the amending Act LV of 1964 and the repeal of Sea Customs Act, 1878, by Customs Act LII of 1962, Section 6(e) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 is a complete answer to this contention. 31. Under these circumstances, it was concluded by this Court that the offences relate to export of mineral ores in 1956 and 1957 long before the amending Act LV of 1964 and the repeal of Sea Customs Act, 1878, by Customs Act LII of 1962, Section 6(e) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 is a complete answer to this contention. Section 6(e) of the General Clauses Act may be extracted: “Where this Act, or any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not– (e) affect investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid; and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the repealing Act or Regulation had not been passed. 32. Further, it was decided that unless a different intention appears the repeal shall not affect any investigation or legal proceeding and any such investigation or legal proceeding may be instituted or continued as if the repealing act or regulation had not been passed. 33. While penning down the judgment, the Hon’ble Thiru. Justice P.S.Kailasam has also taken the assistance of the decision reported in State of Punjab v. Mohar Singh ( AIR 1955 S.C. 84 ) at page 88. In which it is held as follows: “Whenever there is a repeal of an enactment, the consequences laid down in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act will follow unless, as the section itself says, a different intention appears. In the case of a simple repeal there is scarcely any room for expression of a contrary opinion.” 34. In State by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, C.I.D. Headquarters Unit, Madras – 4 v. S.Thirunavukkarasu and another (1992 L.W.(Cri.) 625), a petition was filed by the State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, CID Headquarters Unit for setting aside the order of Special Judge, refusing the request of the prosecution for remand of the accused who were charged for offences under Section 120-B of IPC read with Section 5(2) and 5(1) (a) of the old Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The first accused was a former minister of the State Government and the second accused was his Personal Assistant. It was contented for the accused before the Sessions Judge that the registration of the case on 15.07.1992 under the provisions of the old Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for the acts said to have been committed during the currency of the said enactment, was not permissible legally, inasmuch as no action had been taken under the provisions of the said enactment therefore, before its repeal on 09.09.1988. The argument was countered by the Public Prosecutor who contended that the old Act had been repealed and in its place, a new enactment (Act 49 of 1988) had been passed with a saving provision under Section 30 (2), according to which it is legally permissible for the initiation of prosecution of any person accused of offences under the old Act, notwithstanding the fact that the case as respects those offences had been registered subsequent to repeal and, in this view of the matter, there is no other go for the Court except to remand these persons and allow further investigation to proceed according to law. The first accused filed in the High Court a petition for quashing of the first information report on the ground of non-disclosure of any cognizable offence and another petition for quashing the investigation commenced on the basis of the first information report mainly on the ground of mala fides. The second accused filed a petition for quashing the first information report and the further investigation as against him. 35. Under these circumstances, it was held by this Court as detailed below: “The combined effect of the provisions as engrafted in Sections 30 and 31 and the preamble of the new Act makes it clear that the intention was to consolidate and amend the law relating to the prevention of corruption and for matters connected therewith. This clearly shows that the Legislature was alive to the fact that the provisions under Chapter IX of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 are required to be enacted into one Act with modifications so as to make the provisions more effective in combating corruption among public servants and it was to effectuate that intention that the Act was put on the statute book.” 36. It was also held that it goes without saying that the launching of prosecution under the old Act alone is legally permissible even subsequent to its repeal, as respects offences which were committed during the period when the old Act was in force – no matter when prosecution was launched – as there was no period of limitation prescribed therefor and in this view of the matter, the impugned order of the Special Judge deserves to be set aside as being unsustainable in law. 37. In Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd.,( 2001 (8) SCC 397 ), a question was arisen before the Hon'ble Supreme Court saying that whether the amendment which effects repeal of the Act in respect of a class of tenancies, would not affect the pending eviction proceedings concerning such tenancies. In this question, the Apex Court has answered that the amendment which effects repeal of the Act in respect of a class of tenancies, being not retrospective in operation, held, would not affect the pending eviction proceedings concerning such tenancies which would continue as if the Act had not been so amended by virtue of Section 6(c) of General Clauses Act and a privilege would accrue to landlord to approach the Rent Controller in the manner provided under the Act for eviction of tenant. Further, the Apex Court has also explained the scope and effect of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act of 1897 in the following manner: “Scope and effect: Section 6 contemplates continuance of pending proceedings or investigations as if statute had not been repealed as rights and obligations of the parties get crystallised on the date of commencement of the lis.” 38. In O.Abdul Aziz and others’(1982 II MLJ 359), a ride was conducted by Enforcement Directorate on 27th January 1974 and the show cause notices have been issued thereafter under the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, when that Act stood repealed by the enactment of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1972. In O.Abdul Aziz and others’(1982 II MLJ 359), a ride was conducted by Enforcement Directorate on 27th January 1974 and the show cause notices have been issued thereafter under the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, when that Act stood repealed by the enactment of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1972. The contention of the learned counsel is that on the facts of this case show cause notices can be issued only under the 1973 Act and not under the 1947 Act, and that even if the 1947 Act is applied, the statements recorded from the appellants cannot be acted upon as the statements have not been taken by the Director of Enforcement as contemplated by Section 19(E) of the said Act. 39. The learned counsel in support of his submission, that on the facts of this case the 1947 Act is not applicable and that action could be taken only under the 1973 Act, refers to Section 81 of the 1973 Act, which is the repealing and saving section. Section 81(1) repeals the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. Section 81(2) says that notwithstanding such repeal anything done or any action taken or purported to have been done or taken under the repealed Act insofar as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, should be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of the Act. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that if anything had been done or action taken under the 1947 Act in respect of the foreign Exchange violation by the appellants, that could be saved and that in this case everything including the raid has been done after the new Act came into force, and therefore, Section 81 will not come to the aid of the department. 40. In this case, admittedly the Foreign Exchange violation has taken place before the new Act came into force and when the old Act was in force. Though the show cause notices were issued after the new Act came into force, they were in relation to an offence which had been committed when the old Act was in force. 40. In this case, admittedly the Foreign Exchange violation has taken place before the new Act came into force and when the old Act was in force. Though the show cause notices were issued after the new Act came into force, they were in relation to an offence which had been committed when the old Act was in force. Under these circumstances, it was concluded that since the offence had been committed when the old Act was in force, the appellants should be taken to have incurred a liability under the old Act for the offences committed while that Act was in operation. In such cases, on the basis of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, the liability incurred can be enforced as if the 1973 Act had not been passed. Thus for the offence committed or the liability incurred under the old Act the provisions of the old Act can be invoked treating the new Act as not having been passed. Therefore, it should be held that the 1947 Act has rightly been invoked in this case. 41. In Jagan M. Seshadri’s ( AIR 2002 SC 2399 ), also the same principle has been laid down. 42. On coming to the instant case on hand, it is apparent that the case in Crime No.127 of 2002 was registered on 27.05.2002 and a complaint to that effect was lodged with the Sethupavasathiram Sub Inspector of Police on the same day itself. Investigation was taken up and the charge sheet was also filed by the Inspector of Police attached to the said Police Station on 03.09.2002. All these were done when the old Act viz., the Indian Electricity Act 1910 was in force. Then, trial was commenced. During the pendency of trial, the Indian Electricity Act 1910 was amended and the amended Act 57 of 2003 came into force on 10.06.2003. 43. It is also apparent that the judgment was pronounced on 08.08.2008. All these were done when the old Act viz., the Indian Electricity Act 1910 was in force. Then, trial was commenced. During the pendency of trial, the Indian Electricity Act 1910 was amended and the amended Act 57 of 2003 came into force on 10.06.2003. 43. It is also apparent that the judgment was pronounced on 08.08.2008. In clause (3) of Statement of Objects and Reasons for the amendment of the Electricity Act 2003, it is stated that “with the policy of encouraging private sector participation in generation, transmission and distribution and the objective of distancing the regulatory responsibilities from the Government to the Regulatory Commissions, the need for harmonising and rationalising the provisions in the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1988 in a new self contained comprehensive legislation arose. Accordingly, it became necessary to enact a new legislation for regulating the electricity supply industry in the country it would replace the existing laws, preserve its core features other than those relating to the mandatory existence of the State Electricity Board and the responsibilities of the State Government and the State Electricity Board with respect to regulating licensees. In sub clause (xiii) to Clause (4) of Statement of Objects and Reasons it is stated that the provisions relating to theft of electricity have a revenue focus. This clearly shows that the legislature was alive to the fact that the provisions in the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1988, are required to be enacted into one Act with modifications so as to make the provisions more effective in combating power theft and to focus mainly on the mobilisation of revenue to the Government. Therefore, the intention of the legislators are not different. 44. Sub section 2(a) and 5 to Section 185 of the Electricity Act 2003 have to be read along with the benevolent provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. 45. The mandate of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act is simply to leave the pending proceedings unaffected which commenced under the unrepealed provisions unless contrary intention is expressed. Here, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant has not expressed any contrary intention. 45. The mandate of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act is simply to leave the pending proceedings unaffected which commenced under the unrepealed provisions unless contrary intention is expressed. Here, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant has not expressed any contrary intention. Under these circumstances, the trial proceedings of the case in C.C.No.1986 of 2002 and the judgment dated 08.08.2008 have been unambiguously protected under Section 6(e) of the General Clauses Act. 46. In view of the observations made above, the judgment of this Court reported in The Assistant Executive Engineer v. A.V.K. Velayutha Raja and another (2008 (2) TNLR 146 (Mad.)(MB) is dissented. 47. In the result, the criminal revision is dismissed. The impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court is confirmed.