The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of the court to entertain a complaint is determined based on the date of the complaint and the absence of extension of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure to the relevant territories at the time of the complaint.

Headnote:
JURISDICTION - Extension of Indian Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure to Goa, Daman and Diu - 3, 4, 188 - The court discussed the extension of the Indian Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure to Goa, Daman and Diu territories, and the relevance of Sections 3, 4, and 188 of the Indian Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure in determining the jurisdiction of the court. The court emphasized that the accused persons were liable to be tried in the Indian Court of competent jurisdiction based on the date of the complaint and the absence of extension of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure to the territories at the time of the complaint.
Fact of the Case:

The complainant lodged a complaint alleging offences under Sections 120-B, 403, 448, 341, 454 and 114 I. P. C. committed in the year 1953 within the territorial limits of Daman, which was then a foreign territory. The trial Magistrate dismissed the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction after the merger of Daman with India.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the accused persons were liable to be tried in the Indian Court of competent jurisdiction based on the date of the complaint and the absence of extension of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure to the territories at the time of the complaint.
Issues: The issues revolved around the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the complaint in light of the extension of the Indian Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure to the territories and the relevant provisions of Sections 3, 4, and 188 of the Indian Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accused persons were liable to be tried in the Indian Court of competent jurisdiction based on the date of the complaint and the absence of extension of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure to the territories at the time of the complaint.
Final Decision: The application was allowed, and the case was sent back to the Presidency Magistrate, 16th Court, Esplanade, Bombay, to proceed according to law and in the light of the court's observations.

JUDGMENT - 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:

"The Acts, as they sre Generally in force in the territories to which they extend, shall extend to Goa, Daman and Diu, subject to the modi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document