Order.- An important question of law is raised in this case as to whether there is a conflict between section 485-A, which was inserted by Act XXVI of 1955 and section 487 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is contended that the offence punishable under section 485-A, Criminal Procedure Code, is identical with that made punishable by section 174, Indian Penal Code and by reason of section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, an offence under section 174, Indian Penal Code, cannot be taken cognizance of, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or his superior. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that inasmuch as under section 487(1) except as provided in sections 480 and 485, Criminal Procedure Code, no Judge of a criminal Court or Magistrate other than a Judge of a High Court, shall try any person for any offence referred to in section 195, when such offence is committed before himself or in contempt of his authority, and there is no reference in that section to section 485-A, Criminal Procedure Code, there is an irreconcilable conflict between the two sections and a lacuna in section 487, Criminal Procedure Code. It is further argued that as long as this lacuna is not filled up by the Legislature section 485-A, Criminal Procedure Code, must remain a dead letter. The commentators in A.I.R. Commentaries on the Code of Criminal Procedure and in the M.L.J. Publication of the Code, take the same view. Since this is an important question of law, I think it desirable that this case be heard by a Bench of two Judges. Let notice be issued to the Advocate-General and let the papers be placed before the Hon’ble the Officiating Chief Justice for orders as to posting. In pursuance of above order of reference the petition came on for hearing before the Bench. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Chandra Reddy, C.J.-This matter was referred to a Bench by our learned brother Basi Reddy, J., as it was thought that it raised an important question of law as to whether there was a conflict between section 485-A which was inserted by Act XXVI of 1955 and section 487 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The question arises in the following circumstances. The question arises in the following circumstances. The petitioner was convicted by the First Class Magistrate, Vikarabad, under section 48 5-A of the amended Criminal Procedure Code and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 10. This was confirmed in revision by the Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has approached this Court under section 439, Criminal Procedure Code. It is argued in support of this petition that the offence punishable under section 485-A, Criminal Procedure Code, is identical with that made punishable under section 174, Indian Penal Code, and by virtue of section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, an offence under section 174, Indian Penal Code, could not be taken cognizance of except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or his superior. It is further maintained that inasmuch as under section 487(1), except as provided in sections 480 and 485, Criminal Procedure Code, no Judge of a Criminal Court or Magistrate other than a Judge of a High Court, shall try any person for any offence referred to in section 195, when such offence is committed before himself or in contempt of his authority and there is no reference in that section to section 485-A, there is an irreconcilable conflict between the to sections and a lacuna in section 487, Criminal Procedure Code. In support of this contention reliance is placed on the A.I.R. Commentary on section 485-A which is in these words: "The offence described in sub-section (1) of the section is an offence falling under section 174 of the Penal Code which is referred to in section 195(1)(a) of this Code. Except as provided in sections 480 and 485 of the Code, section 487 prohibits a Judge of a Criminal Court or a Magistrate, other than a Judge of a High Court, from trying a person for an offence referred to in section 195 when the offence is committed inter alia in contempt of his authority. As the heading of Chapter 10 of the Penal Code shows, the offence under section 174, Penal Code, is committed in contempt of the lawful authority of the public servant. Thus in order to give effect to the provisions of this section an amendment of section 487 by way of making this section an exception to that section was necessary. As the heading of Chapter 10 of the Penal Code shows, the offence under section 174, Penal Code, is committed in contempt of the lawful authority of the public servant. Thus in order to give effect to the provisions of this section an amendment of section 487 by way of making this section an exception to that section was necessary. In the absence of such amendment this section, it is submitted, will remain a dead letter on the statute book". The commentary in the M.L.J. Publication of the Criminal Procedure Code is on the same lines. Section 485-A as introduced by Act XXVI of 1955 reads: "If any witness being summoned to appear before a criminal Court is legally bound to appear at a certain place and time in obedience to the summons and without just excuse neglects or refuses to attend at that place or time or departs from the place where he has to attend before the time at which it is lawful for him to depart, and the Court before which the witness is to appear is satisfied that it is expedient in the interests of justice that such witness should be tried summarily, the Court may take cognizance of the offence and after giving the offender an opportunity of showing cause why he should not be punished under this section, sentence him to fine not exceeding one hundred rupees. (2) In every such case the Court shall follow, as nearly as may be practicable, the procedure prescribed for summary trials in which an appeal lies." Section 487, Criminal Procedure Code, in in these words: "Except as provided in sections 480 and 485, no Judge of a criminal Court or Magistrate, other than a Judge of a High Court, shall try any person for any offence referred to in section 195, when such offence is committed before himself or in contempt of his authority, or is brought under his notice as such Judge or Magistrate in the course of a judicial proceedings. Section 195(1)(a), Criminal Procedure Code, runs thus: "No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 of the Indian Penal Code, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned, or of someother public servant to whom he is subordinate". Section 195(1)(a), Criminal Procedure Code, runs thus: "No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 of the Indian Penal Code, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned, or of someother public servant to whom he is subordinate". On a reading of sections 487 and 195(1), Criminal Procedure Code, it is manifest that only offences falling under section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, are governed by section 487. The point in dispute is whether there is an irreconcilable conflict between the provisions of section 485-A and section 487, Criminal Procedure Code, and whether the former is ineffectual by reason of its non-inclusion in the latter. Section 485-A was enacted by the Central Legislature by Act XXVI of 1955. There can be no doubt that it was within the legislative competence of the Parliament to have enacted the statute. Under Article 254 of the Constitution of India, the Parliament has overriding and plenary powers of legislation and, in exercise of that authority, it could amend, repeal, modify or add to any existing law. The first question, to be answered is whether the absence of mention of section 485-A in section 487, Criminal Procedure Code has rendered section 485-A a dead letter and consequently no effect could be given to it. As we have already stated, section 487, Criminal Procedure Code, governs offences which fall within the purview of section 195. Section 195(1)(a) has enumerated offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 of the Indian Penal,Code. It is not necessary for us to notice the offences catalogued in clause (b) of section 195(1), as the offence that is said to have been committed in the present case does not fall within the category of those set out in that sub-sect on. The Commentaries mentioned above as well as the learned counsel for the petitioner proceeded on the assumption that the offence for which the petitioner was convicted is one punishable under section 174, Indian Penal Code. We have, therefore to see whether section 485-A takes in section 174, Indian Penal Code. The Commentaries mentioned above as well as the learned counsel for the petitioner proceeded on the assumption that the offence for which the petitioner was convicted is one punishable under section 174, Indian Penal Code. We have, therefore to see whether section 485-A takes in section 174, Indian Penal Code. Section 174, Indian Penal Code recites: “Whoever, being legally bound to attend in person or by an agent at a certain place and time in obedience to a summons, notice, order or proclamation proceeding from any public servant legally competent, as such public servant to issue the same, intentionally omits to attend at that place or time, or departs from the place where he is bound to attend before the time at which it is lawful for him to depart, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both; or, if the summons, notice, order or proclamation is to attend in person or by agent in a Court of justice, with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both”. It is clear that the punishment provided by section 174, Indian Penal Code, is simple imprisonment which may extend to one month or fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or both in one eventuality and simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or both, if the summons is to attend a Court of justice, whereas under section 485-A, Criminal Procedure Code, the maximum punishment is only a fine not exceeding one hundred rupees. Such being the position, section 485-A does not deal with an offence falling under section 174, Indian Penal Code. Onthe other hand, it creates a distinct offence providing for a maximum sentence of Rs. 100 fine. It also makes a provision for the trial of the offence itself. The intendment of the section as could be gathered from the language is that an offence of the description envisaged in. the section should be dealt with summarily and that resort need not be had to section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, etc. 100 fine. It also makes a provision for the trial of the offence itself. The intendment of the section as could be gathered from the language is that an offence of the description envisaged in. the section should be dealt with summarily and that resort need not be had to section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, etc. It is a self-contained provision creating an offence and also the machinery for the trial of such an offence. It is thus a combination of a substantive provision creating an offence of a less serious nature and also a procedure for the trial of such an offence. Hence it is outside the purview of section 487, Criminal Procedure Code, which is a prohibitory provision. That section excludes the jurisdiction of Courts in which the offence is committed before itself or in contempt of its authority. But section 485-A, Criminal Procedure Code, is an enabling provision conferring jurisdiction on a Court to take cognizance of an offence committed in contempt of its authority. Therefore, the latter should be treated as an exception to the former. It is a well recognised rule of construction of statutes that a specific provision will prevail over the general provision, unless on a consideration of the statute in its entirety a contrary intention of the Legislature is indicated as contained in the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant. In this context, we may usefully refer to a passage in Maxwell’s “Interpretation of Statutes”, at page 172 (Tenth Edition). The passage is extracted below: “Where a general intention is expressed, and also a particular intention which is incompatible with the general one, the particular intention is considered an exception to the general one. Even when the latter, or later part, of the enactment is in the negative, it is sometimes reconcilable with the earlier one by so treating it. If, for instance, an Act in one section authorised a corporation to sell a particular piece of land and in another prohibited it from selling ‘any land’, the first section would be treated, not as repealed by the sweeping terms of the other, but is being an exception to it”. This principle is enunciated in De Winton v. Brecon1, Taylor v. Corporation of Oldham2, and Churchill v. Crease3. There is, therefore, no difficulty at all in reconci-