HARIVANSH LAL M. MEHRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) [His Lordship, after setting out the facts and considering the evidence in the case, proceeded.] The first contention is that as the Prevention of Corruption Act did not apply to Goa and as the offence was completed at Goa, the accused could not be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act. In order to appreciate the contention, a few facts need be noticed.

(2.) GOA came to be liberated on December 20, 1961, On March 5, 1962, an Ordinance came to be promulgated (Ordinance No. 2 of 1962) for the administration of Goa. This Ordinance recites that the territories of Goa, Daman and Diu were acquired with effect from December 20, 1961, by virtue of Sub -clause (c) of Clause (3) of Article 1 of the Constitution. It then proceeds to the enacting Article Thereafter came on March 27, 1962, the Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration) Act, 1962, which is practically in terms similar to the Ordinance. On this very day was enacted the Constitution (Twelfth Amendment) Act, 1962, by which Goa, Daman and Diu were added to the First Schedule of the Constitution under the heading '.The Union Territories'. Similar entry was also inserted in Article 240 of the Constitution. Both the Ordinance and the Administration Act provide, by Section 4, that all laws in force immediately before the appointed day in Goa, Daman and Diu or any part thereof shall continue to be in force therein until amended or repealed by a competent Legislature or other competent authority. Sub -section (2) of Section 4 gives power to the Central Government to make adaptations and modifications as may be expedient or necessary within two years from the appointed day. Section 5 enables the Central Government, by notification, to extend any enactment in force in a State at the date of the notification to the territories of Goa, Daman and Diu, with such modifications or restrictions as it thinks proper. The argument is: it was only on November 12, 1962, that the President made a Regulation, known as 'The Goa, Daman and Diu (Laws) Regulation, 1962', Section 3 of which extended enactments mentioned in the Schedule with some modifications therein to Goa, Daman and Diu. Even this was subject to the proviso that they were to come into force on such date as may be directed by the Lieutenant -Governor of the territory. One of the Acts mentioned in the Schedule is the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. In accordance with the power contained in Section 3, the notification at exh. 185 was issued by the Lieutenant -Governor and the Act became applicable on December 27, 1962, much after the completion of the last incident held proved against the accused.

(3.) THE learned trial Judge answered this contention on two grounds. He considered the purpose of this sub -section and held that the section would be rendered absurd by saying that it would apply to all citizens of India outside India, but not to citizens of India within the territories of India merely because the Act was not applied to that territory. Therefore, as a matter of construction, he held that the second part applied to all citizens, whether within or without India, Secondly, the learned Judge said that it is wrong to say that the offence was completed in Goa. According to him, as the offence consisted of several acts, some of which were completed within the State, it could not be said that the offence had occurred in the territories of Goa and, therefore, the appellant could not be prosecuted. As we have seen, admittedly the articles were improperly transported with the object referred to in the Prevention of Corruption Act and ultimately received in Bombay, as deposed to by Savara, which evidence must be accepted, then evidently, the acts were completed in this State and the second answer made by the learned trial Judge cannot possibly be challenged.