IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL REFERENCE APPLICATION NO. 1 OF 2009 GREG FURTADO ... Appellant Versus STATE OF GOA AND ANR. ... Respondent Mr. G. Teles, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. M. S. Joshi, Special Public Prosecutor for the State of Goa. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 9th March, 2011 P.C. Heard Mr. Teles, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. Joshi, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State of Goa. 2. The Additional Sessions Judge-I, Panaji in Criminal Revision Application No.123/2008 has referred following questions under Section 395 of Cr.P.C. to this Court : (i) Whether the provisions of the M.P. Control of Music and Noises Act No.14 of 1951 as extended to the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu, vide Notification LD/NOT/70/66 dated 1.11.1966 by the Central Govt., is in force in the territory of State of Goa in absence of any notification by the Administrator of Union of Goa, Daman and Diu as provided in Section 1(3) of the Act for fixing the date from which day the said Act shall come into force ? (ii) Whether the provisions of the M.P. Music and Noises Act 14 of 1951 as extended to Goa vide Notification LD/NOT/70/66, stands impliedly repealed by the provisions of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Rule framed under it as per Section 3 thereof and called as Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, vide Notification S.O.123 (E) dt.14/2/2000, published in Gazette of India Extra., Part II, which makes provisions for punishment of Noise Pollution which are inconsistent and more stringent than M.P. Act ? 3. The facts leading to making reference are as under : The applicant Greg Furtado was prosecuted before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mapusa in Criminal Case No.353/S/07/E for having committed offences punishable under Sections 7 and 10 of M.P. Control of Music and Noises Act, 1951 ('The Act' for short). 4. Before the learned Magistrate, the accused took a stand that the said Act was not extended to the State of Goa and as such, he could not be prosecuted under the said Act. The contention was negatived by the learned Magistrate. The applicant preferred revision application to the Sessions Court, North Goa, Panaji which was made over to the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Panaji. The Additional Sessions Judge after hearing the prosecution and the learned Counsel for the applicant, made a reference under Section 395 of Cr.P.C. referring the above referred questions to this Court. 5. Mr. Joshi, learned Special Public Prosecutor has produced notification dated 17th November, 1966 which was published in official gazette dated 15th December, 1966 which clearly discloses that The Act was brought into force in the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu with effect from 1st December, 1966. It appears that the said notification was not produced before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In view of the said notification, the first question does not arise for consideration. 6. In so far as the second question is concerned, it would be appropriate to refer to Section 24 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Section 26 of The General Clauses Act, 1897. They read thus : Section 24 of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 : Effect of other laws - (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the provisions of this Act and the rules or orders made therein shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act. (2) Where any act or omission constitutes an offence punishable under this Act and also under any other Act then the offender found guilty of such offence shall be liable to be punished under the other Act and not under this Act. Section 26 of The General Clauses Act, 1897 : Provision as to offences punishable under two or more enactments - Where an act or omission constitutes an offence under two or more enactments, then the offender shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished under either or any of those enactments, but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence. 7. Upon harmonious reading of the above provisions, it is clear that there is no bar for prosecuting the applicant for having committed offences under Sections 7 and 10 of The Act. Merely because The Environment (Protection) Act also makes the acts allegedly committed by the applicant punishable under Act, the same by itself does not prohibit the prosecution from prosecuting the applicant for having committed the offences under Sections 7 and 10 of the Act which is in force in the State of Goa. 8. In view of the above position, the second question which has been referred for determination also does not arise for consideration. 9. In view of the above, the reference is rejected. 10. The applicant shall appear before the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Panaji on 6th April, 2011 at 2.30 p.m. The learned Additional Sessions Judge shall decide the Criminal Revision Application no.123/2008 expeditiously in accordance with law. 11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA