STATE OF PUNJAB vs MOHAR SINGH..

The Supreme Court held that the provisions of Section 6(c)(d)(e) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 apply to cases of repeal and simultaneous enactment, clarifying that the absence of a saving clause in the new enactment does not negate the rights and liabilities under the repealed law. It was determined that a prosecution for an offence under the East Punjab Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Ordinance, 1948 could validly commence even after its repeal, as the Ordinance was repealed before its expiration. The Court distinguished the case from Danmal Parshotamdas v. Baburam, emphasizing that 'anything done' in Section 11 of the Punjab Act XII of 1948 refers to official acts under the Ordinance, not contraventions thereof.