Merely because 1898 Code has been repealed and replaced by 1973 CrPC, could not affect the situation, the bench said.
The Supreme Court in Aires Rodrigues vs. Vishwajeet P Rane, has held that a notification issued under Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1932, is still relevant and the notification with reference to old Code of Criminal Procedure of 1898 should be read as having been issued with reference to Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The Union Territory of Goa (as it then was) had issued a notification dated 27th June, 1973, declaring Sections 186, 188,189, 228, 295-A, 298, 505 or 507 of the Indian Penal Code, when committed in the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu, to be cognizable and Sections 188 or 506 of the IPC to be non-bailable when committed in the said territory. The notifications were issued invoking the powers under Section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932.
Challenge before HC
When these notifications were challenged before the High Court of Bombay at Goa, it held that from 1st April, 1974 (when the new Criminal Procedure Code came into force) onwards, the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Penal Code is a non-cognizable offence. According to high court, Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 484 of the CrPC 1973 saves only the notifications issued under CrPC 1898 and the notifications issued under the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1932 were not saved.
Notification issued under Amendment Act with reference to old code also valid
A bench comprising Justice AK Goel and Justice UU Lalit observed that the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1932 is a central legislation and even today it is operative and power conferred under Section 10 can be exercised. The court approvingly referred to a Gujarat High Court judgment in Vinod Rao v. The State of Gujarat, wherein it was held that the notification issued under Section 10 of the Criminal Amendment Act of 1932 with reference to CrPC, 1898, should be read as having been issued with reference to CrPC, 1973. “We must read in Section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, “CrPC 1973” in place of the expression of “CrPC 1898””, the high court had held in the said case.
Setting aside the judgment of the high court, the court said it agreed with the view taken by the high courts of Gujarat, Delhi, Allahabad and Madras in Vinod Rao v. The State of Gujarat, Sant Ram v. Delhi State and Anr., Mata Sewak Upadhyay & Anr. v. State and P Ramakrishnan v. State, respectively. It also disagreed with the view taken by the High Court of Allahabad in Pankaj Shukla v. Anirudh Singh, without noticing the full bench in Mata Sewak Upadhyay.
Read the order here.
This article has been made possible because of financial support from Independent and Public-Spirited Media Foundation.