VISHWAJIT P RANE Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , the challenge is to a Notification dated 29th April/11th May, 2004 issued by the Government of Goa in purported exercise of powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1932"). By the said notification, the Government of Goa purported to declare that any offence punishable under Sections 186, 189, 228, 298, 506 or 507 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "the Penal Code") when committed within the State of Goa shall be cognizable. The notification further provides that any offence punishable under Section 188 or Section 506 of the Penal Code shall be non-bailable when committed within the State of Goa.

(2.) With a view of appreciate the submissions made by the parties, a few facts will have to be set out. At the instance of the Intervenor who is an Advocate, First Information Report dated 22nd August 2007(FIR No.130/2007) was registered by the Officer in charge of Old Goa Police Station, Old Goa in purported exercise of powers conferred by Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Code of 1973"). The offence alleged is under Section 506(ii) of the Penal Code. The investigation was carried out on the basis of the First Information Report. On 8th May, 2009, the police filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Panaji for an offence punishable under Section 506(ii) of the Penal Code. It is stated in the said petition that the Intervenor filed a private complaint on 31st August, 2007 against the petitioner and his wife. It is stated that the private complaint as against the petitioner's wife was quashed by the Sessions Court, Panaji in a revision application.

(3.) The legal contention raised in the petition is that by purported exercise of powers under Section 10 of the said Act of 1932, the State Government was not competent to amend the provisions of the said Code of 1973. It is submitted that the said Act of 1932 does not empower the State Government to amend any part of the said Code of 1973. It is submitted that as the said Code of 1973 is a law enacted by Parliament, it can be amended only in accordance with Article 254 of the Constitution. The first prayer in the petition is for quashing the said notification. The second prayer is for quashing the First Information Report registered at the instance of the Intervenor.