( 1 ) * * * *the point that arises to be considered in this reference is as to whether on the averments made in the complaint whether the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Kodinar had jurisdiction to entertain and try the accused for the offence under sec. 494 of the Indian Penal Code. The parties are Hindus. The marriage of the complainant took place with accused No. 1 in the year 1961 at the village of Madhvad in Kodinar Taluka in accordance with the Hindu religious and customary rites prevailing amongst them. Both of them are then said to have lived together at Madhvad within the jurisdiction of the Kodinar Court for about six months as husband and wife and it is thereafter that she has been deserted by accused No. 1 with the result that he has not been living with her. In the first week of August 1965 the accused No. 1 is said to have contracted the second marriage with the daughter of Sidi Sakkai at Vanakbara in Diu Taluka which is now governed by the Union Government through a Lieutenant Governor. Since the parties were obviously governed by the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 as provided in sec. 11 of the Act any marriage solemnized after the commencement of this Act shall be null and void. . . . . . . if it contravenes any one of the conditions specified in clauses (i) (iv) and (v) of sec. 5. The condition in clause (i) of sec. 5 is contravened by reason of the fact that the complainant was alive when her husband-the accused No. 1 contracted marriage with the daughter of Sidi Sakkai in August 1965. Sec. 17 then provides that Any marriage between two Hindus solemnized after the commencement of this Act is void if at the date of such marriage either party had a husband or wife living and the provisions of secs. 491 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860) shall apply accordingly. Then sec. 494 of the Indian Penal Code provides that Whoever having a husband or wife living marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. Taking all these provisions together it would be essential for the complainant to establish that during her life time her husband the accused No. 1 had contracted marriage with another woman viz. Bai Hiru daughter of Sidi Sakkai and that such marriage is void as contemplated under the law governing the Hindus viz. the Hindu Marriage Act 1955

( 2 ) NOW it appears that Vanakbara is in Diu Taluka which is at present being governed by the Union Government through a Lieutenant Governor. By reason of the Notification dated 20-7-1963 issued by the Lieutenant Governor in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by sec. 3 (2) of the Regulation both the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure have been extended to territories with effect from 1 Sec. 5 (1) provides that All offences under the Indian Penal Code shall be investigated inquired into tried and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions hereinafter contained. Clause (2) thereof says that All offences under any other law shall be investigated inquired into tried and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating inquiring into trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. Since the complaint discloses the offence under sec. 494 read with sec. 114 of the Indian Penal Code having regard to clause (1) of sec. 5 of the Code the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code would govern the investigation inquiry and trial in respect of any such offence under the Indian Penal Code. Even if it is taken to be an offence committed by reason of sec. 17 read with sec. 11 and sec. 5 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act by reason of clause (2) thereof the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure would govern the case. The Hi