( 1 ) THIS case is referred to this Full Bench for deciding the question as to whether the appeal filed by the accused against their order of conviction in Summary Case No. 1528 of 1973 by the Metropolitan Magistrate 10 Court Ahmedabad under sec. 66 of the Bombay Prohibition Act can lie in this Court in view of repealing and saving provisions of sec. 484 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the New Code ). The question arises in this manner. The two accusedappellants were chargesheeted before the City Magistrate 10 Court Ahmedabad on August 25 1973 for having committed offence under sec. 66 (b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. It was alleged that the accused had committed the said offence on August 25 1973 The learned City Magistrate 10 Court recorded the plea of the accused on December 10 1973 The evidence was recorded by the Metropolitan Magistrate 10 Court on April 8 1974 and the said Magistrate found both the accused guilty of the offence with which they were charged and convicted each of the accused on April 8 1974 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and pay a fine of Rs. 500/ (in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month ). Both the accused filed Appeal No. 279 of 1974 in this Court which came up for admission before Mr. Justice Surti who took the view that as the accused were convicted after coming into force of the New Code the appeal ought to have been filed in the Court of Sessions at Ahmedabad in view of the provisions of subsec. (3) of sec. 374 of the New Code. No reasoning are given by the learned Judge for coming to this conclusion. The learned Judge realising the importance of the question after expressing his opinion on the point referred the matter to a Division Bench. The appeal was then placed before Division Bench consisting of J. B. Mehta and B. K. Mehta JJ. who in view of the wide public importance of the question involved in the case thought it better that the point be decided by a larger Bench and hence this Full Bench is constituted.

( 2 ) THE new Code came into force from April 1 1974 It must be noticed that even though the prosecution was instituted in the Court of the City Magistrate against the accused prior to April 1 1974 i. e. before coming into force of the New Code the order of conviction was passed on April 8 1974 against both the accused. The appeal against the said order of conviction was filed in this Court by both the accused on April 9 1974 The question is whether the said appeal is maintainable in this Court in view of sec. 484 of the New Code. Sec. 484 of the New Code is as follows:484 (1): The Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is hereby repealed. (2): Not-withstanding 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 investigation shall be disposed of continued held or made as the case may be in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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; (b): all notifications published proclamations issued powers conferred forms prescribed local jurisdiction defined sentences passed and orders rules and appoint. ments not being appointments as Special Magistrates made under the Old Code and which are in force immediately before the commencement of this Code shall be deemed respectively to have been published issued conferred prescribed defined passed or made under the corresponding provisions of this Code; (c): any sanction accorded or consent given under the Old Code in pursuance of which no proceeding was commenc