CrPC Section 484 — Repeal and savings

Summary

Sub-section (1) repeals the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

Sub-section (2) says that, despite the repeal, the following rules apply.

Clause (a) of sub-section (2) says that an appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation pending immediately before this Code came into force is to be dealt with under the old Code, as though this Code had not come into force. However, an inquiry under Chapter XVIII of the old Code that was pending when this Code came into force is to be dealt with under this Code.

Clause (b) of sub-section (2) says that notifications, proclamations, powers, forms, local jurisdictions, sentences, orders, rules and appointments (except appointments as Special Magistrates) made under the old Code and still in force immediately before this Code came into force are treated as having been made under the corresponding provisions of this Code.

Clause (c) of sub-section (2) says that a sanction or consent given under the old Code, where no proceeding had been started under that Code in reliance on it, is treated as given under the corresponding provisions of this Code. Proceedings may be started under this Code in reliance on that sanction or consent.

Clause (d) of sub-section (2) says that the old Code continues to apply to every prosecution against a Ruler within the meaning of article 363 of the Constitution.

Sub-section (3) says that if the time limit under the old Code for an application or other proceeding had expired on or before this Code came into force, this Code does not allow that application to be made or proceeding to be started merely because this Code sets a longer time limit or allows time to be extended.

Official Text

(1) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898), is hereby repealed.

(2) Notwithstanding such repeal—

(a) if, immediately before the date on which this Code comes into force, there is any appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation pending, then, such appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation shall be disposed of, continued, held or made, as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898), as in force immediately before such commencement (hereinafter referred to as the old Code), as if this Code had not come into force: Provided that every inquiry under Chapter XVIII of the Old Code, which is pending at the commencement of this Code, shall be dealt with and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of this Code;

(b) all notifications published, proclamations issued, powers conferred, forms prescribed, local jurisdictions defined, sentences passed and orders, rules and appointments, not being appointments as Special Magistrates, made under the Old Code and which are in force immediately before the commencement of this Code, shall be deemed, respectively, to have been published, issued, conferred, prescribed, defined, passed or made under the corresponding provisions of this Code;

(c) any sanction accorded or consent given under the Old Code in pursuance of which no proceeding was commenced under that Code, shall be deemed to have been accorded or given under the corresponding provisions of this Code and proceedings may be commenced under this Code in pursuance of such sanction of consent;

(d) the provisions of the Old Code shall continue to apply in relation to every prosecution against a Ruler within the meaning of article 363 of the Constitution.

(3) Where the period prescribed for an application or other proceeding under the Old Code had expired on or before the commencement of this Code, nothing in this Code shall be construed as enabling any such application to be made or proceeding to be commenced under this Code by reason only of the fact that a longer period therefor is prescribed by this Code or provisions are made in this Code for the extension of time.

Related Judgments

• NATABAR PARIDA BISNU CHARAN PARIDA BATAKRUSHNA PARIDA BABAJI PARIDA vs STATE OF ORISSA — Supreme Court of India (1975)
• M. R. DHAWAN vs DELHI ADMINISTRATION & RAJA PRATAP BHANU PRAKASH SINGH — Supreme Court of India (1978)
• P. PHILIP vs THE DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT, NEW DELHI & ANOTHER — Supreme Court of India (1976)
• LALU PRASAD YADAV vs STATE OF BIHAR & ANR — Supreme Court of India (2010)
• JAGIR SINGH vs RANBIR SINGH & ANR — Supreme Court of India (1978)
• Mr. Shree Prakash Singh & Anr. vs 1 The State of Maharashtra & Anr — Bombay High Court (Mumbai Principal Seat) (2017)

Old <-> New Code Mapping

• BNSS §531 — Repeal and savings