Cognizable and non-bailable offences notification continued in Delhi despite the 1973 Criminal Procedure Code saving provision.

Section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 empowered the State Government to notify specified offences, including Sections 506 and 507 IPC, as cognizable and non-bailable. The Delhi notification issued in 1933 therefore continued to apply to those offences in the Union Territory. The Court further held that the coming into force of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 did not extinguish the notification, because the saving provision preserved prior notifications and laws then in force. On that basis, the challenge to the FIR and criminal proceedings on the ground that the offences were non-cognizable failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed on the ground that offences under Sections 506 and 507 of the Indian Penal Code were not cognizable or non-bailable in Delhi and that the earlier notification had ceased to operate after the coming into force of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The writ petition challenged the FIR and the ensuing proceedings on the footing that the offences were wrongly treated as cognizable and non-bailable. The Court held that Section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 empowered the State Government to declare specified offences, including Sections 506 and 507 of the Indian Penal Code, as cognizable and non-bailable by notification. It noted that the Delhi notification issued in 1933 had declared those offences cognizable and non-bailable in the Union Territory of Delhi. The Court further held that the substitution of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 did not terminate the notification, because the saving provision continued prior notifications and laws in force. The alternative request to quash the proceedings for want of a prima facie case was not examined as no such ground was taken in the writ petition.

Conclusion: The challenge failed, and the proceedings were held to be valid in law; the petitioner was not entitled to quashing on the grounds urged.

Final Conclusion: The Court sustained the cognizability and non-bailability of the offences in Delhi and rejected the request to interfere with the pending criminal proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory notification declaring specified offences cognizable and non-bailable continues to operate where a later saving provision preserves prior notifications and laws in force, and such proceedings cannot be quashed on the premise that the offences are non-cognizable.

---