ORDER 1. No counter affidavit has been filed despite opportunities. 2. The grievance in these proceedings are that on 31.3.2004 the respondents issued the impugned notification declaring that certain offences namely, punishable under Sections 186, 188, 189 and 506, IPC would henceforth be treated as cognizable and non-bailable. The notification also declared that offences punishable under Sections 188 and 506 of the IPC were not bailable. 3. It is contended that an identical notification had been quashed by a judgment of this Court dated 13.1.2003 reported as Narender Kumar v. State, 2004 (1) JCC 303. The Court reasoned that with coming into force of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 the power under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 could not be used, indefinitely. 4. The impugned Notification nowhere discloses the source of power which enabled the Govt. of NCT to override the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code"). The definition clause, i.e. Section 2 and Schedules to the Code define as to which offences are bailable and cognizable. In Narender Kumars case, the continuation of a notification of 1933 made before the enactment of the 1973 Code, was held invalid. 5. It is contended that the enactment of the Code in 1973, which specifically provided as to what offences are bailable and non-cognizable, curtained the power of the executive to seek recourse to pre-constitution laws, which sanctioned changes to statutorily defined conditions. 6. Prima facie, there is merit in the petitioners argument. The provisions in question are non-cognizable, and non-bailable, all, except the offence under Section 506, if proved, carry light sentences, parliament in its wisdom classified them as non-cognizable and non-bailable. In the absence of my express power, indicated in the Code, empowering amendment of the Schedule by the Executive, such legislative stipulations/conditions which touch upon the citizens liberty cannot be overridden by notifications, seeking recourse to pre-Constitution laws. This Court had held that Section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act appeared to be a temporary measure. Further, the notification appears to have been issued in a mechanical manner, without application of mind, because offences punishable under Sections 186 and 188, are governed by preconditions indicated in Section 195, Cr.P.C., unlike other cases. Therefore, Courts cannot take cognizance except upon complaints filed by the concerned public servant. f 7. Further, the notification appears to have been issued in a mechanical manner, without application of mind, because offences punishable under Sections 186 and 188, are governed by preconditions indicated in Section 195, Cr.P.C., unlike other cases. Therefore, Courts cannot take cognizance except upon complaints filed by the concerned public servant. f 7. The enactment, in the First Schedule to the Code specifically provide, that the offences in question are bailable and non-cognizable. Hence, the power under Section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 empowering the executive to notify the said offences as non-bailable and cognizable, is a stipulation contrary to express provisions in the Code, and not saved under Section 5. There is also some merit in the submission that the 1932 Act enacted a power in detraction of provisions of the old Code, of 1898; it cannot apply after enactment of the new Code. In view of the above, operation of the impugned Notification is hereby stayed till further orders. List on 8.1.2008. Order dasti. To be listed on 8.1.2008.