Criminal Appeal No 76 of 1976
T C Raghavan and N Sudhakaran for the appellant
Debabrata Mookerjee and R N Sachthey for respondent No 1
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA J
This appeal by special leave is directed against an order dated July 1 1975 of the High Court of Kerala dismissing 533 the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the appellant
It raises questions with regard to the scope and interpretation inter alia of sections 399 3 and 4842 a of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 hereinafter referred to as the New Code
The facts are these On February 2 1971 the Director of Enforcement New Delhi made a complaint against four accused persons
alleging the commission of offences under section 120 B Penal Code and section 51 aa and B 51 c of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947 for short called the Act in the Court of the District Magistrate Ernakulam
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 section 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 section 23D 1 of the Act in as much as there was on additional material before him to come to the conclusion that the penalty which he is empowered to impose under section 23 would not be adequate and that consequently it was necessary to file a complaint in Court
Dr 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 section 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 Philip 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 section 3993 of the New Code
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 section 484 of the New Code it had to be disposed of in accordance with the old Code
As against this Mr D Mukherji submits that the word application in section 4842 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 section 438 of the Code of 1878 and could not be finally disposed of by the Sessions Judge at his level it would not be an application within the contemplation of section 4842 a of the Code of 1973
It is pointed out that procedural rights are not vested rights that whereas a right of 534 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 section 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
We are unable to accept the interpretation of section 4842 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 Cr
Procedure 1898 V of 1898 is hereby repealed
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 investigation shall be disposed of contained held or made as the case may be in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 V of 1898 as in force immediately before such commencement  as if this Code has not come into fore  It will be seen that the word application in the saving provision contained in clause a of sub section 2 of section 484 immediately follows the term appeal
It therefore takes some colour from the collocation of words in which it occurs
It is synonymous with the term petition which means a written statement of material facts requesting the court to grant the relief or remedy based on those facts
It is a peculiar mode of seeking redress recognised by law
Thus considered there can be no doubt that the word application as used in clause a of section 484 of the Code of 1973 will take in a revision application made under section 435 of the old Code
Such a revision application does not cease to be an application within the purview of the aforesaid clause a merely because in the event of the application being allowed the Sessions Judge was required to make a reference to the High Court under section 438
Whether such an application is granted or dismissed by the Sessions Judge he finally disposes of the matter so far as his court is concerned
May be that a purely interlocutory application in a pending action which by itself is not an independent mode of seeking redress recognised by law is not covered by the word application  as used in the aforesaid clause a
But it is not necessary to express any final opinion on that point because a revision application of the kind before us is not by any recokning such an interlocutory application
In the present case the revision application made by P Philip was pending before the Sessions Judge when the New Code came into force
In view of section 4842 a of the New Code this revision was required to be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the old Code
535 The above being the position the learned Judges of the High Court were clearly in error in holding that in view of section 3993 of the New Code the appellant was not competent to maintain a revision in the High Court against the order dated August 6 1974 of the Sessions Judge
For these reasons we allow this appeal set aside the order of the High Court and send the appellant s revision petition No 393 of 1974 back of it for disposal with utmost expedition in accordance with law
Appeal allowed and R P 39374 remitted


Summary:
In February 1971 the Director of Enforcement made a complaint against 4 accused for violation of certain provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act read with section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code
The appellant herein who was accused No 2 made an application before the Trial Court raising two preliminary objections to the maintainability of the complaint and prayed for its dismissal
The Trial Court by its judgment dated 5 9 1973 dismissed the application holding that the points raised would be considered after recording the evidence
The appellant filed a Revision Application to the Sessions Court under section 435 of the Code of Cr
Procedure 1898 which was dismissed in August 1974
The appellant filed a Revision Application to the High Court which was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that it was not maintainable in view of section 3993 of the new Code
In an appeal by Special Leave the appellant contended At the time when the Revision petition was filed before the Sessions Judge the old Code was in force and in view of section 484 of the new Code the application had to be disposed of in accordance was the old Code
The respondents on the other hand contended that the word application  in section 4842 of the new Code is a word of limited import and that it would include only those applications which could be finally disposed of by the Sessions Judge
 HELD The word application  in the saving provision immediately follows the term appeal 
It therefore takes some colour from the collection of words in which it occurs
It is synonymous with the term petition  which means a written statement of material facts requesting the Court to grant the relief or remedy based on those facts 
is a peculiar mode of seeking redress recognised by law
There is no doubt that the word application  as used in clause a of section 484 of the new Code will take in a revision application made under section 435 of the old Code
The Revision Application made by the appellant was pending before the Sessions Judge when the new Code came into force
Therefore it was required to be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the old Code
534D F G H