PHEROZE JEHANGIR DASTOOR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision from the order of the Presidency Magistrate, 17th Court, Mazagaan, Bombay, dismissing the complaint on the ground that ho had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. The material facts may be briefly stated as follows: The complainant lodged a complaint in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate, 16th Court, Esplanade, Bombay, on 5-11-62 alleging that the three accused had committed offences under Sections 120-B, 403, 448, 341, 454 and 114 I. P. C. According to the complainant, these offences were committed in the year 1953 within the territorial limits of Daman, which was then a foreign territory, so far as India is concerned, and was governad hy the Portuguese Government. After the complaint was lodged, process was issued and the accused appeared before the Court on 14-3-1963. They raised the Question about the jurisdiction of tha Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, to entertain the complaint. Thereafter the case was adjourned to 9-5-63 for recording evidence. It was then transferred to the 17th Court, Mazagaon, Bombay. It was contended before the trial Magistrate that since Daman has been included in the Union Territories with effect from 20-12-1961, and since the complaint was lodged after that date, the offences could be tried at the place they were committed. The trial Magistrate held that the offences, which were alleged to have been committed at Daman, could not be inquired into at Bombay, after the merger of Daman with India. He, therefore, dismissed the complaint and discharged the accused, it is against that order that the complainant has come up in revision.

(2.) MR. Advani, learned counsel for the complainant, pointed out that the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure were originally intended lo be extend ed to Goa, Daman and Diu with effect from 1-10-1953, but they were actually extended on 1-11-1963. According io him, so long as these provisions are not extended to these territories, the matter would continue to be governed by the provision of Section 4, I. P. C. and Section 188, Cr. P. C.

(3.) IN order to appreciate this line of reasoning, it is necessary to refer to a few more facts and the relevant provisions of the Constitution of India. The territories ot Goa, Daman and Diu came to be occupied with effect from 20-12-61. On 5-3-62 an Ordinance (No. 2 of 1962) was proclaimed. Soction 4 of the Ordinance declared that all laws in force before the appointed day, which is the same as the date of occupation, shall remain in force. Thereafter, on 28-3-62 an Act (No. 1 of 1962) was passed, which was to be deemed to have come into force will effect from 5-3-62. Section 5 of the Act declared that the laws existing since before the appointed day wouid continue to remain in force. It is not necessary to rafer to the other provisions of the Act. The 12th Amendment of the Constitution received the assent of the President on 27-3-62. Section 3 amended Article 240 of the Constitution and Section 2 amended the First Schedule of the Constitution by adding an eighth entry thereto. That takes me to the provisions of Article 240 of the Conslitution, which enables the President to make regulations for the peace, progress and good government of the Union Territory. Goa-Daman and Diu were declared to be Union territories. The First Schedule undar the heading "the Union Territories" mentioned seven territories as being included in that list. Goa, Daman and Diu came to be included as the eighth entry. Under Article 240, the President has got thet power of making reflations for the peace, progress and good government of these territories. The President, in pursuance of Article 240, made a Regulation (No. 12 of 1933) governing these territories, which was published in the Gazette of India dated 22-11-1962. Section 3 (1) of the. Regulation provides: