1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVN. APPLICATION NO. 468 OF 2008 Miss. Surekha G. Jangam. ... Applicant. V/s. State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. Ms. Surekha Jangam, Applicant-in-person. Mr. A.S. Shitole, APP for the State. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 28th JANUARY 2010. P.C. :- This is a Revision Application filed by the Party-in-Person, in somewhat unusual circumstances. 2. I had posed the question as to why the Applicant/Accused who has been acquitted from the subject Criminal Case has filed this Revision Application and therefore, how is it maintainable. This query was posed on the earlier occasion. Today, the Party-in-Person invited my attention to the order of the Trial Court and urged that there is no question of granting a benefit of doubt while acquitting her from a Criminal Case when the Trial itself is vitiated for want of jurisdiction. She submits that the Trial Court has come to a conclusion that all allegations pertain to a non-cognizable offence. When the allegations are that a non-cognizable offence is committed, then, the remedy is not to institute such a case and that too by the Police Machinery. The aggrieved 2 party has other remedies in law. The Party-in-Person has invited my attention to the clear conclusion of the Trial Court that the instant case is non-cognizable, requisite permission of the Magistrate is not obtained and therefore, the prosecution is void ab-initio. In paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Trial Court’s order, this is a clear conclusion reached after a reference to the allegations against the Applicant/Accused. 3. If the case itself was vitiated in the manner set out in the Trial Court’s order, then, there was no necessity in law to record any evidence and deliver a Judgment on merits. The entire prosecution was held to be void and bad in law ab-initio. If it is so bad in law, then, there was no obligation on the part of the Trial Court to record evidence and deliver a Judgment as if a Regular Criminal Case is being tried. In these circumstances, there is no question of any benefit of doubt being given. The case should have resulted in clear acquittal of the Applicant. Once the matter before the Court below was void ab-initio, then, the trial was unnecessary. If the trial was unnecessary, then, there was no need to record evidence leave alone delivering a Judgment by referring to the merits of the charges. Therefore, the order passed by the Court below is substituted as under :- (i) The prosecution under Sections 110, 112 r/w. 117 of Bombay Police Act, 1951 is held to be void and bad ab-initio. 3 (ii) The Applicant is acquitted of the charges levelled in the complaint. 4. The Revision Application is allowed in these terms. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)