Continuing force of non-bailable notification under a Central statute remained open as interim anticipatory bail was granted.

A notification under Section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 declaring Section 506(i) IPC non-bailable in Tamil Nadu was treated as a declaration under a Central statute, not as a mere local amendment to the repealed Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court noted that, unless withdrawn, such a declaration could continue after the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 came into force, but also recorded conflicting High Court views and an earlier Division Bench order leaving the issue open. The legal controversy was referred to the Chief Justice for consideration by a Division Bench, and interim anticipatory bail was granted pending authoritative determination.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notification issued under Section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, declaring the offence under Section 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code to be non-bailable in Tamil Nadu, continued to operate after the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 came into force, and whether interim anticipatory bail should be granted pending authoritative determination.

Analysis: The notification made under the Criminal Law Amendment Act was treated as a declaration under a Central statute and not as a mere local amendment to the repealed Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The view was taken that, absent withdrawal, such a declaration would continue to have force notwithstanding the enactment of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. At the same time, conflicting views of other High Courts were noted, and the earlier Division Bench of the same Court had left the question open. In that situation, the matter was considered fit for reference to a Division Bench to resolve the legal controversy.

Conclusion: The questions were directed to be placed before the Chief Justice for reference to a Division Bench, and interim anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioners pending further consideration.

Final Conclusion: The controversy on the continued validity of the notification and the bailability of the offence was not finally determined in this order, but the petitioners obtained interim protection while the issue was referred for authoritative decision.

Ratio Decidendi: A notification issued under a Central statute may continue to operate after repeal of the earlier procedural code if it is not a mere amendment to the repealed code, and conflicting authority justified a reference while granting interim relief.

---