The proviso to Section 484(2)(a) of the new CrPC requires pending inquiries to be dealt with and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the new Code, including the Schedule, which determines the jurisdiction to try offenses.

MASODKAR J.:- The petitioner is arrayed as an accused in a complaint presented by the respondent Vithal Ramteke to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur on November 29, 1973. That complaint alleged offence under several counts such as Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 474, 476 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code. It is not in dispute that on February 28, 1974, the complaint was registered on all these 11 counts and process issued to the present petitioner-accused. The process issued with regard to offences under Ss. 467, 472, 473 474 and 476 of the Indian Penal Code which were exclusively triable by the Court of Session under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter called the Old Code), would have reference to Chapter XVI read with Chapter XVIII of the Code as then applicable. Under the former Chapter the procedure regarding complaints to Magistrates is indicated while under the latter Chapter the procedure regarding the enquiry into cases triable by Court of Session or by High Court is indicated. Admittedly, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called the New Code) was applied on April 1, 1974, and on that day the process was not disposed of nor the proceedings pending before the Magistrate had terminated.

2. Eventually, by the impugned order passed on August 30, 1976 the learned Magistrate decided that as the Criminal Complaint was registered on February 28, 1974, i. e. prior to the New Code coming into existence, the case would be governed by the old Code only and it would require the accused to be committed for trial by the Court of Session. He applied the provisions of the New Code as far as the enquiry postulated under S. 209 of the New Code is concerned and committed the accused to face the trial before the Sessions Judge, Nagpur.

3. Now under the New Code the offences under Ss. 467, 472, 473, 474 and 476, I. P. C. are no more exclusively triable by the Court of Session. The Schedule append- ed to the New Code showed that these offences can be tried by the Magistrate of the First Class. Thus if the New Code applied to the enquiry that was pending on 1-4-1974, it would be obvious that under the Schedule the jurisdiction to try the offences even with regard to counts mentioned above would be that of the Magistrate and there is no need to further follow the procedure of S. 209 as to send the accused for trial by the Sessions Court.

4. The result would depend on the true construction of the proviso to Cl. (a) of sub- sec. (2) of S. 484 of the New Code. That reads as follows:-

"484. x x x x

(2) Notwithstanding such repeal:-

(a) if, immediately before the date on which this Code comes into force, there is any appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation pending, then, such appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigations shall be disposed of, continued, held or made, as the case may be, in accordance with the provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898), as in force immediately before such commencement, (hereinafter referred to as the Old Code), as if this Code had not come into force. Provided that every inquiry under Chapter XVIII of the old Code, which is pending at the commencement of this Code, shall be dealt with and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of this Code." (Emphasis added)

While interpreting the proviso, it is well settled that we have to approach it as a provision enacting an exception which but for it would be governed by the main part of the section. So approached, it will be indeed clear that enquiries which were pending at the commencement of the New Code are not only to be dealt with but are required to be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the New Code. The phrase "in accordance with the provisions of this Code" contained in the proviso is of wide amplitude and cannot be restricted merely to the procedural part of the enquiry as such and would also include the power and jurisdiction to tr