The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of procedural provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the application of the saving clause in S.484(2)(a) to pending revision applications from the old Code.

1. This appeal by special leave is directed against an order dated July 1, 1975 of the High Court of Kerala, dismissing the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the appellant. It raises questions with regard to the scope and interpretation, inter alia, of S.399 (3) and 484 (2) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the New Code). The facts are these:

2. On February 2,1971 the Director of Enforcement, New Delhi made a complaint against four accused persons, alleging the commission of offences under S.120-B, Penal Code and S.5 (1) (aa) and 5 (1) (c) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (for short, called the Act) in the Court of the District Magistrate, Ernakulam.

3. The appellant herein was accused No. 2 in that complaint. By an application he raised two objections to the maintainability of the complaint and prayed for its dismissal. First, the opportunity as required under the proviso to S.23 (3) of the Act was not given to the accused for showing that he had permission from the Reserve Bank of India for doing the alleged acts. Second, that the complainant did not comply with the conditions in the proviso to S.23D (1) of the Act, inasmuch as there was no additional material before him to come to the conclusion that the penalty which he is empowered to impose under S.23, would not be adequate and that consequently, it was necessary to file a complaint in Court.

4. By an order dated September 5, 1973, the trial court dismissed the application holding inter alia "that the points raised here will be considered after recording the evidence." On the same day, against this order dated September 5,1973, accused No. 2 (P. Philip) filed Cr. Revision Petition No. 27 of 1973 under S.435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter called the Old Code) before the Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, who dismissed the same by an order dated August 6,1974. Aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Judge, P. Philiph preferred Cr. Revision Petition No. 393 of 1974 to the High Court. This revision was heard by a Division Bench along with two other Revisions (Cr. Rev. Petns. Nos. 409 and 411 of 1974) and dismissed, without going into the merits, on the ground that it was not maintainable in view of S.399 (3) of the New Code.

5. Mr. Raghavan, learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the order under appeal is manifestly erroneous because at the time when the revision petition was filed before the Sessions Judge, the old Code was in force, and in view of S.484 of the New Code, it had to be disposed of in accordance with the old Code.

6. As against this, Mr. D. Mukherji submits that the word "application" in S.484(2) (a) of the Code of 1973 is a word of limited import. According to the Counsel only those applications which could be finally disposed of by the Sessions Judge would be covered by this word. Since the revision application, in the instant case-proceeds the argument was one for reference to the High Court under S.438 of the Code of 1898, and could not be finally disposed of by the Sessions Judge at his level, it would not be an "application" within the contemplation of S.484(2) (a) of the Code of 1973. It is pointed out that procedural rights are not vested rights, that whereas a right of appeal is a substantive right, the procedural facility to move in revision does not involve such a right. On these premises it is maintained that the saving clause in S.484 should be very strictly construed, with the result that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, will govern all revisions which were pending on April 1,1974 when it came into force.

7. We are unable to accept the interpretation of S.484(2)(a) of the new Code suggested by the learned Counsel for the respondents. The language of this provision is clear. Its material part runs as under:

(1) The Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (V of 1898) is hereby repealed.

(2) Notwithstanding such repeal

(a) If, immediately before the date on which this Code com