Judgment

SIKRI, J.: This appeal by special leave is from the judgment and order of the Judicial Commissioner, Goa, Daman & Diu, allowing the revision application under section 435 of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the State. The only point involved in this appeal is whether the order passed by the Lt. Governor dated November 6, 1963, was invalid. This order reads as under:

"ORDER

GAD/74/63/25007

In exercise of the power conferred by the Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration) Removal of Difficulties Order, 1962 and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law for the time being in force in this Territory, the Lieutenant Governor makes the following order:

All criminal proceedings in relation to offences committed prior to the date of coming into force of the Criminal Procedure Code shall be carried on under the law in force in the Territory before that date.

By order and in the name of the Lieutenant Governor of Goa, Daman and Diu."

2. Before dealing with the question of the validity of this order it is necessary to give few facts. On December 20, 1961, Goa, Daman and Diu became part of the territory of India. The residence of the appellant was raided on June 25, 1963, and 72 bars of gold were seized. On November 1, 1963, the Goa, Daman and Diu (Laws) Regulation, 1962 (Regulation No. XII of 1962) hereinafter referred to as the Regulation, was promulgated by the President and published in the Gazette on November 22, 1962. The effect of Section 3 of the Regulation, read with the Schedule, was inter alia to extend the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to Goa, Daman and Diu. Section 3 (2) of the Regulation enabled the Lt. Governor to fix the date of coming into force of the Act in Goa, Daman and Diu. It appears that by notification dated September 24, 1963, the date of the coming into force of the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure was changed from October 1, 1963, to November 1, 1963. Accordingly, it is the latter date on which the Code of Criminal Procedure came into force in Goa, Daman and Diu.

3. Section 7 of the Regulation provides:

"Until the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, are brought into force in Goa, Daman and Diu, all offences under any Act shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions of the corresponding law in force in Goa, Daman and Diu."

The effect of S. 7, as is clear from the section, was that offences committed prior to the coming into force of the Criminal Procedure Code were to be investigated, inquired into, etc., under the provisions of the corresponding law in force in Goa, Daman and diu.

4. Section 8 of the Regulation provides:

"If any difficulty arises in giving effect in Goa, Daman and Diu, to the provisions of any Act extended by this Regulation to that Union territory, the Central Government may, by order in the Official Gazette, make such provisions or give such directions as appear to it to be necessary for the removal of the difficulty."

5. It appears that some difficulties were experienced by the Lt. Governor and he purported to pass the impugned order which we have set out above.

6. It will be noticed that this impugned order does not refer to section 8 of the Regulation but refers instead to Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration) Removal of Difficulties Order, 1962. We have seen this order and it is common ground that this order did not enable the Lt. Governor to pass the impugned order.

7. On April 20, 1966, a complaint was filed against the appellant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Margao, under the Defence of India Rules. The prosecution was challenged on various grounds but these grounds failed before the Judicial Magistrate. The order of the Judicial Magistrate is not on the record. A revision was filed to the Sessions Judge, who first discussed the question of jurisdiction. He held that by virtue of the impugned order the procedure to be followed in t