M. K. MUKHERJEE, J. ( 1 ) IN this revisional application the petitioner prays for quashing the proceedings of Case No. CR 632 of 1978 pending against him in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Serampore under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 2 ) THE opposite party instituted the case by filing a complaint under Sections 494/496 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and one Smt. Supriya Hore alleging that during the subsistence of his marriage with the opposite party, the petitioner has again married her (Smt. Supriya Hore) in the month of October, 1975 in Bangla Desh and has thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been further alleged that Smt. Supriya Hore is also liable for prosecution under Section 496 of the Indian Penal Code. Process was issued only against the petitioner and not against the other accused. After entering appearance before the learned Magistrate the petitioner filed an application that the proceeding instituted against him was void ab-initio as the requisite sanction for prosecution was not obtained from the Central Government as required under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application being of the view that he had jurisdiction to try the case under section 182 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner moved this Court and obtained the present Rule. ( 3 ) HAVING regard to the allegation that the petitioner married for the second time in Bangla Desh, the only question that falls for determination is whether the proceeding pending against the petitioner is maintainable in absence of any sanction under section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ( 4 ) THE fascicules of sections appearing in Chapter XIII of the Code determines the jurisdiction of Criminal Courts to enquire and try offences. Section 182 (2) appearing in the said Chapter specifically relates to the jurisdiction of the Courts which can try offences under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. Under the said provisions, the offence under section 494 may be enquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the offender last resided with his or her spouse by the first marriage. Under the said provisions, the offence under section 494 may be enquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the offender last resided with his or her spouse by the first marriage. By the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act 1978 (Act No. 45 of 1978) the jurisdiction has been further extended to Courts within whose local jurisdiction the wife by the first marriage has taken permanent residence after the commission of the offence. In view of the specific averment made in the complaint that after marriage the opposite party lived with her husband (petitioner) lastly at Baidyabati in the district of Hooghly, the Court of the Magistrate at Serampore has the necessary jurisdiction to try the offence. It has next to be seen whether the provisions of section 188 of the Code is applicable to a case which is governed by section 182 (2 ). ( 5 ) SECTION 188, to the extent it is relevant for our present purpose, reads as follows: - ?when an offence is committed outside India - (a)by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere; (b)? ? ? ? he may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it has been committed at any place within India at which he may be found; provided that notwithstanding anything in any of the preceding sections of this Chapter, no such offence shall be enquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. ( 6 ) A plain reading of the section makes it indubitably clear that while the main part relates to jurisdiction of Court, the proviso relates to conditions requisite for continuance of proceeding in Court; and the non-obstante clause appearing in the said proviso qualifies not only the section itself but all other sections of the Chapter including section 182. The non-obstante clause clearly indicates that section 188 is not governed or controlled by the preceding sections of the Chapter but in turn itself governs and controls the same so far as it relates to sanction for prosecution of offences which are committed outside India. The non-obstante clause clearly indicates that section 188 is not governed or controlled by the preceding sections of the Chapter but in turn itself governs and controls the same so far as it relates to sanction for prosecution of offences which are committed outside India. It has been contended on behalf of the opposite party that the proviso is limited in its operation to the ambit of the section which it qualifies and therefore no sanction is necessary when the proceeding is Serampore Court is being held under the provision of section 182 (2) and not of Section 188 of the Code. Though such is the general principle of interpretation of a proviso, due to the non-obstante clause appearing therein, it cannot reasonably be so construed as contradicting the main enactment only and it has to be interpreted on the principle that ?it speaks the last intention of the makers: (1) (Attorney General v. Chelsea Water Works Co. , (1731) Fitzg 1995 ). As the offence of bigamy in the instant case was committed outside India it necessarily follows that in view of the proviso to section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the offence cannot be enquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. ( 7 ) UNLIKE the provision of section 195 and other cognate sections appearing in Chapter XIV of the Code, the inhibition under section 188 is not against initiation of proceeding but continuance thereof. In other words, while under section 195 or 197the Court cannot take cognizance of an offence without the requisite complaint, or sanction, under 188 the Court can take cognizance of the offence without sanction but it cannot enquire into or try the offence except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. It must therefore be held that the continuance of the proceeding against the petitioner without the requisite sanction is impermissible. ( 8 ) CONSEQUENT upon the above finding the next question that falls for determination is what should be the proper order of this Court. ( 9 ) IN his application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire proceeding including the cognizance taken of the offence as also the issuance of process against the accused. ( 8 ) CONSEQUENT upon the above finding the next question that falls for determination is what should be the proper order of this Court. ( 9 ) IN his application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire proceeding including the cognizance taken of the offence as also the issuance of process against the accused. As indicated earlier, neither the cognizance is bad nor the issuance of process; it is the subsequent enquiry or the trial that cannot be proceeded with in the absence of a sanction but there is nothing to prevent the proceeding being continued in the event of such sanction being subsequently obtained. ( 10 ) IN that view of the matter, it is not desirable to pass an order quashing the entire proceeding. I feel that the better procedure to adopt will be to return the record to the learned Magistrate inviting his attention to the fact that under section 188 he has no jurisdiction to enquire into or try the alleged offence in the absence of the sanction of the Central Government. For continuance of the proceeding it would however be open to the learned Magistrate to afford a reasonable opportunity to the complainant to obtain such sanction. If he feels inclined to exercise his discretion in favour of the complainant it will be for him to decide what should be the reasonable time for obtaining such sanction. I however make it expressly clear that the discretion in this respect will be entirely of the learned Magistrate. Rule disposed of.