2017 (1) TMI 1661

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Vishwajit P. Rane Aires Rodrigues v. Vishwajit P. Rane, STA No. 1918 of 2010 in WP Cri No. 38 of 2009, order dated 27-7-2010 Bom respectively. 2. The question raised before the High Court was whether Notification issued under Section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 (a Central legislation), declaring Sections 186, 188, 189, 228, 295-A, 298, 505 or 507 of the Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) when committed in the Union Territory of Goa (now State), Daman and Diu, to be cognizable and Sections 188 or 506 IPC to be non-bailable when committed, in the said territory. 3. The contention, in support of the challenge, was that such a Notification would be repugnant to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the State cou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ction 295-A of the Penal Code was non-cognizable, but under the said Code of 1973, it was made cognizable. As stated earlier, the Notification dated 27-6-1973, had the effect of amending the said Code of 1898 for making the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Penal Code cognizable and non-bailable. On 1-4-1974, the said Code of 1898 was repealed. Under the said Code of 1973, the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Penal Code is non-cognizable. Therefore, from 1-4-1974 onwards, the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Penal Code is a non-cognizable offence." 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. The Notification in question is as follows: "Home Department Notification ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o be amended accordingly. (2) The [State Government] may, in like manner and subject to the like conditions, and with the like effect, declare that an offence punishable under Section 188 or Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be non-bailable." There is no dispute that the 1932 Act is a Central legislation and even today it is operative and power conferred under Section 10 can be exercised. 9. In these circumstances, merely because the 1898 Code has been repealed and replaced by the 1973 CrPC, could not affect the situation. Section 484 CrPC, 1973 as well as Section 8(1) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 saved a notification which may have been issued under CrPC of 1898. Section 8 of the General Clauses Act....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Court of Allahabad in Pankaj Shukla v. Anirudh Singh Pankaj Shukla v. Anirudh Singh, 2011 SCC OnLine All 2442 without noticing the Full Bench decision of the High Court of Allahabad in Mata Sewak Upadhyay. 11. It is not necessary to refer to all the above judgments. View taken in support of the notification remaining valid and operative in Vinod Rao is, inter alia, as follows: (SCC OnLine Guj para 17) "17. Therefore, applying the rule of construction laid down in Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, we must read in Section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932. CrPC, 1973 in place of the expression of "CrPC, 1898". When we so read it, it becomes clear that the notification issued under Section 10 with reference to CrPC, 1....