1. These are five applications for revision of an order of the learned District Judge of Moradabad giving sanction for the prosecution of the applicants under Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, the sanction having been refused by the Subordinate Judge, The main ground in revision is that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to grant the sanction inasmuch as the amended Code of Criminal Procedure had come into force on the date when it was given. The evidence alleged to be false had been given and the proceedings under Section 195 had been commenced long before the amended Code came into force. The Subordinate Judge's order was also passed under the old Code and the application to the Appellate Court was pending when the new Code came into force. The case is, therefore, governed by Section 6 (e) of the General Clauses Act. The applicants had incurred a liability to have their prosecution for false evidence sanctioned and the complainant on his application being dismissed by the Subordinate Judge acquired a right to apply to the Appellate Court under Section 195 of the unamended Code for the grant of the sanction which the lower Court had refused. Under these circumstances the repeal of Section 195 as it then stood could not affect any pending investigation in respect of the right which had accrued to the complainant or the liability which had been incurred by the applicants. It has indeed been suggested that Section 6 may not be applicable because the Code of 1898 has not been repealed but merely amended.' The effect of the amendment has however been to repeal sections 195 and 476 as they previously stood and to substitute new sections in their place. The word 'enactment' as defined in the General Clauses Act includes not only an entire law but any section or provision of a law, There has, therefore, been a repeal of sections 195 and 476 as they previously stood.
2. It has further been objected that the learned District Judge does not find that a prima facie case has, been made out and that his order does not show with sufficient clearness the statement in respect of which the prosecution has been sanctioned. On the first point there can be no doubt. The evidence which these witnesses gave was found by the Civil Court to be entirely false. As regards the second point although the particular passages are not set out in the District Judge's judgement they were set out in the application for sanction and the order of sanction must be deemed to have been passed with respect to the statements alleged in the application. I find no ground for interfering in revision and I dismiss the applications with costs.