- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Uttam Bala Ravankar v. Assistant Collector Of Customs And Central Excise, Goa And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
On 20 December 1961, the territories of Goa, Daman and Diu became part of India. The appellant’s residence was searched on 25 June 1963 and 72 gold bars were seized. The Goa, Daman and Diu (Laws) Regulation, 1962 (Regulation XII of 1962) was promulgated and published in November 1962, extending, inter alia, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (CrPC) to the Union Territory. By a subsequent notification, the CrPC came into force in the territory on 1 November 1963.
Section 8 of the Regulation empowered the Central Government to issue orders “for the removal of difficulties.” On 6 November 1963, the Lieutenant Governor issued an order directing that “all criminal proceedings in relation to offences committed prior to the date of coming into force of the Criminal Procedure Code shall be carried on under the law in force in the Territory before that date.”
A complaint under the Defence of India Rules was filed against the appellant on 20 April 1966 before the Judicial Magistrate, Margao. The Sessions Judge upheld the applicability of the Portuguese Criminal Procedure Code by virtue of the Lt. Governor’s order. On revision, the Judicial Commissioner held the order ultra vires and directed that proceedings be governed by the Indian CrPC. The present appeal by special leave challenges that decision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Lieutenant Governor’s order dated 6 November 1963, purporting to continue the pre-existing Portuguese criminal procedure for offences committed before 1 November 1963, was valid and within the powers conferred by Section 8 of the Goa, Daman and Diu (Laws) Regulation, 1962.
Arguments of the Parties
Respondent: The State
- Contended that the expression “difficulty” in Section 8 should be read narrowly, relying on the minority observations of Hidayatullah, J. in Jalan Trading Co. (P) Ltd. v. Mill Mazdoor Union, which suggested that removal-of-difficulty orders should be confined to “concrete cases.”
- Submitted that, in the absence of any specific “concrete case,” the Lt. Governor lacked authority to issue a general order altering the procedural law, rendering the impugned order ultra vires.
Appellant
The opinion does not record any specific submissions advanced by the appellant.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Jalan Trading Co. (P) Ltd. v. Mill Mazdoor Union, (1967) 1 SCR 15 | Minority view suggested a narrow reading of “difficulty” clauses, limiting orders to “concrete cases.” | The Court rejected reliance on the minority view and accepted the broader approach of the majority opinion, holding that Section 8 empowered the Lt. Governor to determine and remove practical difficulties. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court observed that although the impugned order referred to a different Removal of Difficulties Order, the determinative enquiry was whether a valid source of power existed. Section 8 of the 1962 Regulation expressly authorised the Central Government to make provisions “necessary for the removal of the difficulty” in giving effect to any statute extended to the territory.
Invoking the General Clauses Act definition of “Central Government,” the Court held that the Administrator of Goa, Daman and Diu (i.e., the Lt. Governor) could exercise those powers. Practical difficulties inevitably arose because investigations into pre-November 1963 offences had been conducted under Portuguese procedure; without a clarifying order, fresh investigations under the Indian CrPC would have been required. The impugned order resolved this administrative problem by continuing the earlier procedural law.
Neither party questioned the constitutionality of Section 8 itself. The Court further noted that the restrictive interpretation advanced by the State rested on a minority opinion in Jalan Trading, whereas the majority had adopted a broader construction. Applying that broader approach, the Court concluded that the Lt. Governor’s order fell squarely within the authority conferred by Section 8.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed. The judgment and order of the Judicial Commissioner were set aside, and the order of the Sessions Judge—recognising the validity of the Lt. Governor’s directive—was restored.
Implications: The ruling confirms the breadth of Section 8 of the 1962 Regulation, recognising the Administrator’s power to issue general removal-of-difficulty orders. The decision directly affects only pending prosecutions for offences committed before 1 November 1963 within Goa, Daman and Diu and does not articulate any new constitutional principle beyond affirming the Administrator’s delegated authority.
S.M Sikri, J.— This appeal by special leave is from the Judgment and Order of the Judicial Commissioner, Goa, Daman and Diu, allowing the revision application under Section 435 of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the State. The only point involved in this appeal is whether the order passed by the Lt. Governor, dated November 6, 1963, was in valid. This order reads as under:
“ORDER
GAD/74/63/25007
In exercise of the powers conferred by the Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration) Removal of Difficulties Order, 1962 and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law for the time being in force in this Territory, the Lieutenant Governor makes the following order:
All criminal proceedings in relation to offences committed prior to the date of coming into force of the Criminal Procedure Code shall be carried on under the law in force in the Territory before that date.
By order and in the name of the Lieutenant Governor of Goa, Daman and Diu.”
2. Before dealing with the question of the validity of this order it is necessary to give a few facts. On December 20, 1961, Goa, Daman and Diu became part of the territory of India. The Residence of the appellant was raided on June 25, 1963 and 72 bars of gold were seized. On November 1, 1963, the Goa, Daman and Diu (Laws) Regulation, 1962 (Regulation No. XII of 1962), hereinafter referred to as “the Regulation” was promulgated by the President and published in the Gazette on November 22, 1962. The effect of Section 3 of the Regulation, read with the Schedule, was inter alia to extend the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to Goa, Daman and Diu. Section 3(2) of the Regulation enabled the Lt. Governor to fix the date of coming into force of the Act in Goa, Daman and Diu. It appears that by notification, dated September 24, 1963, the date of the coming into force of the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure was changed from October 1, 1963 to November 1, 1963. Accordingly, it is the latter date on which the Code of Criminal Procedure came into force in Goa, Daman and Diu.
Section 7 of the Regulation provides:
“Until the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1898, are brought into force in Goa, Daman and Diu, all offences under any Act shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions of the corresponding law in force in Goa, Daman and Diu.”
The effect of Section 7, as is clear from the section, was that offences committed prior to the coming into force of the Criminal Procedure Code were to be investigated, inquired into, etc. under the provisions of the corresponding law in force in Goa, Daman and Diu.
Section 8 of the Regulation provides:
“If any difficulty arises in giving effect in Goa, Daman and Diu, to the provisions of any Act extended by this Regulation to that Union Territory, the Central Government may, by order in the Official Gazette, make such provisions or give such directions as appear to it to be necessary for the removal of the difficulty.”
3. It appears that some difficulties were experienced by the Lt. Governor and he purported to pass the impugned order which we have set out above.
4. It will be noticed that the impugned order does not refer to Section 8 of the Regulation but refers instead to Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration) Removal of Difficulties Order, 1962. We have seen this order and it is common ground that this order did not enable the Lt. Governor to pass the impugned order.
5. On April 20, 1966, a complaint was filed against the appellant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Margao, under the Defence of India Rules. The prosecution was challenged on various grounds but these grounds failed before the Judicial Magistrate. The order of the Judicial Magistrate is not on the record. A revision was filed to the Sessions Judge, who first discussed the question of jurisdiction. He held that by virtue of the impugned order the procedure to be followed in the case is one laid down by the Portugese Criminal Procedure Code and not by the (Indian) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
6. On a revision filed by the State, the learned Judicial Commissioner came to the conclusion that the impugned order was ultra vires. He agreed with the Government pleader that the impugned order was not in conformity with the 1962 Order (Goa, Daman and Diu)(Administration) Removal of Difficulties (Order), passed by the Central Government.
7. It is common ground that if a power subsists and the Lt. Governor can justify the impugned order under any law, the State is not debarred from relying on that law. It seems to us that Section 8 of the Regulation clearly authorised the Lt. Governor to pass the impugned order.
8. The learned counsel for the State says that the word “difficulty” in Section 8 of the Regulation has to be interpreted in a very narrow sense and in this connection relies on the following observations of Hidayatullah, J., as he then was, in Jalan Trading Co. (Private) Ltd. v. Mill Mazdoor Union (1967) 1 SCR 15 at 59:
“The order, of course, would be passed within the four corners of the Parliamentary legislation and would only apply the Act to concrete cases as the courts do when they consider the application of an Act.”
He says that there was no concrete case arising in this case and, therefore, the impugned order cannot be justified by reference to Section 8 of the Regulation. But Hidayatullah, J., was in minority and Shah, J., speaking for the majority, proceeded on the basis that the section under consideration authorised the Government to determine for itself what the purposes of the Act were and to make provisions for removal of doubts or difficulties. Shah, J., did not give any limited meaning to the word “difficulty” in that case.
9. We may mention here that neither the appellant nor the respondent has urged before us that Section 8 of the Regulation itself is invalid.
10. It seems to us that difficulty was bound to arise in giving effect to the Code of Criminal Procedure because this code contemplates investigation and trial under the Code. If investigations had been done under the Portugese Criminal Procedure Code, unless there was some clear provision to deem that investigation as investigation under the Code of Criminal Procedure, fresh investigations under the Code of Criminal Procedure would have to be undertaken. Be that as it may, whatever the difficulties which impelled the Lt. Governor to act, he was competent to make provisions to remove the difficulties.
11. We may mention that although Section 8 of the Regulation enables the Central Government to remove the difficulty, by reading the definition of the “Central Government” in the General clauses Act, the Administrator of Goa, Daman and Diu is entitled to exercise the powers of the Central Government, and the Lt. Governor is the Administrator of Goa, Daman and Diu. We are accordingly of the opinion that the impugned order is valid and the prosecution must be conducted in accordance with its provisions.
12. In the result the appeal is allowed, the judgment and order of the Judicial Commissioner set aside and that of the learned Sessions Judge restored.
Alert