iminal Appeal No30 of 1970
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated June 19 1969 of the Judicial Commissioner s Court Goa Daman and Diu in Criminal Revision Application 23 of 1968
M C Chagla E C Agarwala and section R Agarwal for the appellant
V A Seyid Muhammad and section P Nayar for the respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri J
This appeal by special leave is from the judgment and order of the Judicial Commissioner Goa Daman  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 invalid
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 offenses 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 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 716 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 offenses 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 offenses 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
 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
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
On April 20 1966 a complaint was filed against the appel lant 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 717 the impugned order the procedure to be followed in the case is one laid down by the Portuguese Criminal Procedure Code and not by the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
On a revision filed by the State the learned Judicial Com missioner 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 19612 Order Goa Daman and Diu Administration Removal of Difficulties Order passed by the Central Government
It is common ground that if a power subsists and the Lt
Governor call justify the impugned order under any law the appellant 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
The learned counsel for the State says that the word diffi culty 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 I as he then was in Jalan Trading Co Private Ltd vs Mill Mazdoor Union  The order of course would be passed within the four comers 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
We may mention here that neither the appellant nor the res pondent has urged before us that section 8 of the Regulation itself is invalid
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 Portuguese Criminal Procedure Code unless there was some clear provision to deem that investigation as investigation under the Code of Criminal Procedure fresh 1  59 718 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
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 en titled 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
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
VPS Appeal allowed


Summary:
Under section 32 of the Goa Daman and Diu Laws Regulation 1962
November 1 1963 was the date fixed for coming into force of the Indian Po Code and the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure in Goa Daman and Diu
Under section 8 of the Regulation if any difficulty arises in giving effect in Goa Daman and Diu to any Act extended to that territory the Central Government may make provision for the removal of the difficulty
As some difficulties were experienced regarding the law relating to criminal procedure the Lt Governor on November 6
passed an Order not under section 8 of the Regulation but in Purported exercise of the powers conferred by the Goa Daman and Diu Administration Removal of Difficulties Order 1962 to the effect that all criminal proceedings in relation to offenses committed prior to the date of coming into force of the Indian Criminal Procedure Code shall be carried on under the law in force in the territory before that date
On June 25 1963 some bars of gold were seized from the residence of the appellant and a complaint was filed against him in 1966
On the question of the procedure to be followed the Judicial Commissioner in revision held that the Order of November 6 1963 was ultra vires the Goa Daman and Diu Administration Removal of Difficulties Order 1962 and held that the procedure laid down in the Indian Criminal Procedure Code should be followed
in appeal this Court HELD1 Me Goa Daman and Diu Administration Removal of Difficulties Order 1962 does not enable the Lt Governor to Pass the Order dated November 6 1963
But section 8 of the 1962 Regulation autborised him to pass the Order
If the power subsists and the Lt Governor could justify the order under any law the parties are not debarred from relying on it
717 B D 2 Section 8 of the Regulation authorises the Government to make provision for removal of difficulties
The word difficulty  is not to be construed in the narrow sense of a difficulty with respect to a concrete case
1717 F Majority opinion in Jalan Trading Co P Ltd vs Mill Afazdoor Union   59 followed
3 Under the definition of Central Government  in the General clause Act the Lt Governor as the Administrator of Goa Daman and Diu is entitled to exercise the powers of the Central Government 178 B C 715 4 Therefore the procedure to be followed in the present case is the one laid down by the Portuguese Criminal Procedure Code and not by the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure
718 C