/ 1 / IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1497 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant Vs. Ramdas Dhondiba Pokharkar & Ors. ... Respondents --- Shri P.A. Pole APP for State / Applicant ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED 1ST OCTOBER,2008 P.C. 1. Heard the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. The State has preferred this appeal, challenging the judgment and order passed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. By his judgment and order dated 11th December,2007, was pleased to confirm the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ghodegaon, whereby the application filed by the Respondent under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Criminal Revision Application filed by the Respondents was allowed and the Accused were discharged for the offences punishable under sections 186,342 and 353 of Indian Penal Code and also under sections 110, 112 and 117 of the Bombay Police Act. 2. Brief facts are as under:- / 2 / The complaint was lodged by one Pardhi at Ghodegaon Police Station, alleging that the Respondents had assaulted a public servant Shri Pokharkar and had illegally detained him in his office and, accordingly, a C.R. No.19/2005 was registered against the Respondents. After the investigation was completed, the charge sheet was filed against the Respondents in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ghodegaon. 3. The Respondents had filed an application for discharge before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ghodegaon. However, this application was rejected by the Learned Judge by his judgment and order dated 18.10.2007. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Respondents / Original Accused had preferred a revision Application in Criminal Application No. 981 of 2007 before the Sessions Court. The Learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge allowed the Criminal Revision Application and set aside the order passed by the Magistrate and discharged the Accused. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the State has preferred this Revision Application. This application for leave to file appeal is filed. It is submitted that the Ld. Sessions Judge had erred in relying on the statement given by the Complainant Pardhi in an application made by the accused under the Right to Information Act and / 3 / on that basis allowed the application filed by the Respondents. 5. I have perused the impugned order. The Sessions Court apart from relying on the reply given by the Complainant Pardhi in an application filed by the Respondents under the Right to Information Act, the Sessions Court also relied on the provisions under section 195(1) (a) (i) and held that the Learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offence in view of the legal bar imposed by the aforesaid provision. It is an admitted position that the Criminal Complaint was not filed by the public servant, who was allegedly assaulted and illegally detained by the Respondent, but was filed by the alleged witness Pardhi. Section 195(1) (a) (i) reads as under: (1) No Court shall take cognizance- (a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive of the Indian Penal code (45 of 1860)”. 6. From the perusal of the aforesaid section, it is abundant to clear that no Court can take cognisance of the offence punishable under sections 172 and 188 or by any person, who is sub-ordinate to him. It is not brought on record by the prosecution that Pardhi was sub-ordinate to the said Shri Pokharkar. / 4 / 7. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the Sessions Court and, therefore, no case is made out to grant leave to file an appeal. Leave is accordingly refused. V.M. KANADE J.