JUDGMENT : Samit Gopal, J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Ashish Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record. 3. The present revision is reported to be beyond time by 3 days. An application under Section 5 of Indian LIMITATION ACT dated 24.11.2001 has been filed without any affidavit in support of it. This Court has perused the same. Even notice to the opposite party no. 2 had not been issued on the same. It is 23 years since then and as such ignoring the question of limitation the Court proceeds to hear the matter on its merits. 4. The present criminal revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with 401 Cr.P.C. has been filed before this Court to set aside and quash the judgement and order dated 13.08.2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 17, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Revision No.480 of 1998 ( M/s S.P. and Company vs. Union of India ); Criminal Revision No.481 of 1998 ( M/s S.P. and Company vs. Union of India ); Criminal Revision No.482 of 1998 ( M/s S.P. and Company vs. Union of India ); Criminal Revision No.483 of 1998 ( M/s S.P. and Company vs. Union of India ); Criminal Revision No.484 of 1998 ( M/s S.P. and Company vs. Union of India ); Criminal Revision No.485 of 1998 ( M/s S.P. and Company vs. Union of India ); Criminal Revision No.486 of 1998 ( M/s S.P. and Company vs. Union of India ) and Criminal Revision No.487of 1998 ( M/s S.P. and Company vs. Union of India ). By the said common judgement order all the said criminal revisions have been allowed and the order dated 27.08.1998 passed by the Special C.J.M., Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 157 of 1990, Union of India vs. M/s S.P. and Company , under Section 276(E) INCOME TAX ACT , by which the application dated 30.07.1998 moved by the accused to recall the order taking cognizance, has been rejected and date has been fixed for framing of charge, has been rejected and complaint against the accused was declared closed and it was further observed that the Income Tax Officer will be at liberty to take appropriate action under the new provisions of law. It has been further prayed that the order dated 27.08.1998 passed by the Special C.J.M. Kanpur Nagar be fully restored and to direct the concerned trial court to frame the charges against the accused. 5. Adverting to the facts of the case would be of no useful purpose in deciding the revision since the issue involve is different. 6. A complaint was filed by the revisionist/Income Tax Department under Section 276 E of INCOME TAX ACT against the opposite party on 29.3.1990 in which the year relevant for it was the assessment year 1985-86. The court concerned took cognizance upon the same on the same day i.e. 29.3.1990. The opposite party filed a Criminal Misc. Application (U/S 482) No. 5776 of 1991 before this Court which was disposed of directing the applicant therein to move an application before the court concerned raising his grievances and contentions and it was further directed that if the same is filed, the court concerned may dispose of the same expeditiously by a reasoned order in accordance with law. An application dated 30.7.1998 was moved by the accused which was rejected vide order dated 27.8.1998 passed by the Special C.J.M., Kanpur Nagar. Against the said order a revision was preferred which was connected with 07 other criminal revisions which were allowed and the order dated 27.8.1998 passed in the respective cases was set aside. The complaint filed against the accused was directed to be closed but the Income Tax Department was given liberty to proceed against the accused in view of the new provisions. The present revision has thus been filed before this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that although Section 276E of INCOME TAX ACT , 1961, was deleted with effect from 01.4.1989 and the complaint was filed on 29.3.1990 for the relevant Assessment Year 1985-86, but in view of Section 6 (e) of GENERAL CLAUSES ACT , the same would be maintainable and the order of the trial court to the said effect is a just and proper order which needs to be restored. It is submitted that as such the present revision be allowed. The judgement and order of the revisional court dated 13.8.2001 be set aside and the order of the trial court dated 27.8.1998 be restored and the matter be directed to be proceeded in accordance with law. 8. It is submitted that as such the present revision be allowed. The judgement and order of the revisional court dated 13.8.2001 be set aside and the order of the trial court dated 27.8.1998 be restored and the matter be directed to be proceeded in accordance with law. 8. The question which arises before this Court is whether after deletion of Section 276 E of INCOME TAX ACT from the statute with effect from 01.4.1989 by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, whether a complaint filed on 29.3.1990 on which cognizance was taken on the said date, would be maintainable or not. The said issue is no more res integra. In the case of Union of India vs. Kalpana Dal Mills and another : (2008) 296 ITR 639 (MP) a learned Single Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court, has held that where a complaint is after 01.04.1989 which is after removal of Section 276 E of INCOME TAX ACT from the statute by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, would not be maintainable. Para Nos. 6 and 7 of the said judgement reads as under:- “6. Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that the complaint against the accused persons was filed on February 13, 1990, i.e., after April 1, 1989. That the provisions of section 276E of the Income-tax Act was removed after April 1, 1989, from the statute by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, and as such, the prosecution and the conviction of the accused under section 269T of the Income-tax Act was not tenable. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the case of Shewaram and Sons v. Union of India [2003] 263 ITR 656 (MP) wherein the view expressed is that on account of the omission of section 276E of the INCOME TAX ACT the prosecution for the punishment under section 269T was not permissible. A similar view was expressed in the case of Paramanand Das Brij Bhushan Das v. Union of India [2001] 249 ITR 328 (MP). It is categorically held in the aforesaid cases that where the company made payment in cash in violation of the provisions of section 269T of the Income-tax Act the complaint after April 1, 1989, is not maintainable. However, the appellant has failed to point out the gross mistake in the impugned judgement. It is categorically held in the aforesaid cases that where the company made payment in cash in violation of the provisions of section 269T of the Income-tax Act the complaint after April 1, 1989, is not maintainable. However, the appellant has failed to point out the gross mistake in the impugned judgement. In view of the facts and law highlighted above, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.” 9. Further with regards to omission of a particular Section, the applicability of Section 6 of GENERAL CLAUSES ACT and difference between “omitted” and “repealed” the Apex Court in the case of General Finance Co. and another vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab: (2002)7 SCC 1 in para- 8 and 9 has held that Section 6 of GENERAL CLAUSES ACT will only apply to the provisions which have been “repealed” and would not apply to the provisions “omitted” and hence, held that the prosecution could not be launched or continued by invoking Section 6 of GENERAL CLAUSES ACT after the provision is omitted. Para Nos. 8 and 9 of the said judgement reads as under:- “8.Though we find the submissions of the learned counsel to be forceful, we are constrained to follow the two decisions of the Constitution Benches of this Court in Messrs Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. case (supra) and Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. case (supra). This view has held the field for over three decades and reiterated even as late as two years ago. Non-compliance with Section 269-SS of the Act attracted prosecution as well as penalty. Omission of the provision regarding prosecution will not affect the levy of penalty. The advantage arising out of application of the ratio of the two decisions resulting in prosecution in cases of non- compliance with Section 269-SS of the Act is only transitional affecting a few cases arising prior to 1.4.1989. Such cases may be few and far between. Hence we find this is not an appropriate case for reference to the larger Bench. 9. Such cases may be few and far between. Hence we find this is not an appropriate case for reference to the larger Bench. 9. Net result of this discussion is that the view taken by the High Court is not consistent with what has been stated by this Court in the two decisions aforesaid and the principle underlying Section 6 of the GENERAL CLAUSES ACT as saving the right to initiate proceedings for liabilities incurred during the currency of the Act will not apply to omission of a provision in an Act but only to repeal, omission being different from repeal as held in the aforesaid decisions. In the INCOME TAX ACT , Section 276DD stood omitted from the Act but not repealed and hence, a prosecution could not have been launched or continued by invoking Section 6 of the GENERAL CLAUSES ACT after its omission.” 10. In view of the facts of the case and the legal pronouncements as referred to above, it is clear that the provisions of Section 276 E of INCOME TAX ACT was deleted with effect from 01.04.1989 whereas the complaint was filed on 29.3.1990 on which date cognizance was taken on the same day. Section 6 of GENERAL CLAUSES ACT would not be of any help for the purposes of the present matter in which the provision has been omitted as it relates to a provision which has been repealed. 11. In view of the same, no ground exists to entertain the present revision. 12. The revision is thus devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. 13. Office to send back the trial court records to the concerned trial court along with the order of this Court for information and follow-up action.