JUDGMENT :

1. Leave granted. These appeals have been preferred against Judgments and Orders passed by the High Court of Bombay at Goa on 21st July, 2010 and 27th July, 2010 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 38 of 2009 and in review petition, Stamp Number (Appln.) No. 1918 of 2010 in Crl. W.P. No. 38/2009 respectively.

2. The question raised before the High Court was whether notification issued Under Section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 (a Central Legislation), declaring Sections 186, 188, 189, 228, 295-A, 298, 505 or 507 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (45 of 1860) when committed in the Union Territory of Goa (now State), Daman and Diu, to be cognizable and Sections 188 or 506 of the Indian Penal Code to be non-bailable when committed, in the said territory.

3. The contention, in support of the challenge, was that such a notification would be repugnant to the provision of Code of Criminal Procedure and the State could not issue a notification in conflict with the Central Legislation.

4. On the other hand, the said Notification was supported with the plea that the same was issued under the Central Law and the question of repugnancy does not arise when the Central Law itself perm