9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 1661 - SC - Indian LawsWhether 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 ? HELD THAT - 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. In these circumstances, merely because the 1898 Code has been repealed and replaced by the 1973 CrPC, could not affect the situation. We approve the view taken by the High Courts of Gujarat, Delhi, Allahabad and Madras in Vinod Rao, Sant Ram, Mata Sewak Upadhyay and P. Ramakrishnan and disapprove the view taken by the High Court of Allahabad in Pankaj Shukla. Notification dated 27-6-1973 read with Notification dated 5-7-1973 are operative in the area mentioned therein - Appeal allowed.
Issues:
Validity of Notification under Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 in conflict with Central legislation and Code of Criminal Procedure. Analysis: The Supreme Court addressed the issue of the validity of a Notification issued under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, conflicting with Central legislation and the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court of Bombay at Goa had to decide whether the Notification declaring certain sections of the Penal Code cognizable and non-bailable in the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu was valid. The contention against the Notification was that it would be repugnant to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the State could not issue a conflicting notification. However, the Notification was supported on the grounds that it was issued under the Central law, which permitted the State to issue such a notification. The High Court upheld the challenge against the Notification, stating that the Notification issued under the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1932 amended the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1898, making certain offenses cognizable and non-bailable. The High Court held that the Code of 1898 was repealed by the Code of 1973, making the offense under Section 506 of the Penal Code non-cognizable. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this view, stating that the General Clauses Act saved notifications issued under the old Code. The Court referred to judgments from various High Courts supporting the validity of the Notification under the 1932 Act, despite the repeal of the old Code. The Supreme Court approved the view taken by the High Courts of Gujarat, Delhi, Allahabad, and Madras, disapproving the view taken by the High Court of Allahabad. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the Notification dated 27-6-1973 was operative in the specified area, setting aside the impugned orders and reviving the FIR and charge-sheet in question.
|
