* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 432 OF 2007 IN MISC.APPLICATION NO. 147 OF 2007 Shri.Ashish Dattatraya Ghaisas ... Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra &Ors. .... Respondents. ======= Mr.Vinit Jain h/f. Mr.Girish Kulkarni, adv.for applicant. Mr.Chetan B. Raithatha i/by. I.C.Legal, adv.for respondent no.2. Mr.G.W.Mattos, adv.for respondent no.3. Mrs.M.M.Deshmukh, APP for respondent-State. CORAM: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED: 12TH FEBRUARY, 2009. P.C. : 1. Heard counsel for both sides. 2. This Revision Application is filed to challenge the order dated 16th August, 2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge who is appointed as a Special Judge to hear cases under * 2 * The Prevention of Corruption Act rejecting the private complaint being Misc.Application No. 147 of 2007 filed for the offences punishable under Section 167, 176, 177, 181, 182, 192, 196, 197, 199, 200, 403, 405, 406, 415, 420, read with Section 34 IPC. 3. Mr.G.W. Mattos, the learned counsel for respondent no.3 submits that the present application as against respondent no.3 is misconceived as respondent no.3 was not arrayed as accused in the above private complaint. He also points out that this respondent is impleaded to the present proceedings by way of amendment, however, the amendment is not endorsed as per the procedure. Perusal of the application, shows that name of this respondent is added by hand and there is some initial scribbled against it. There is no date below the signature. There is no endorsement that the amendment is pursuant to the orders of the court. Roznama sheet shows that on 8th October, 2007 the applicant sought permission of the court to implead “some persons” as party respondents to the application. Therefore, the application was adjourned to enable the applicant to take out appropriate application in that behalf. Thereafter, instead of presenting an application for amendment by naming the persons to be impleaded, the amendment is carried out without leave of the court to join * 3 * two persons as respondents thereto. The first added respondent is Jayant Limkar who is arrayed as accused in Misc.Application No. 147 of 2007 and second added respondent is Mr.Pramod A. Sawant, Executive Engineer, Division-I, Tardeo, Mumbai. Thus, amendment of the revision application is carried out without there being any order permitting the applicant to amend the revision application. The order dated 8th October, 2007 is very clear. It allows the applicant to only file an appropriate application for amendment of the revision application. The statement made by the learned advocate for the applicant on that day is a vague statement saying that some persons are required to be impleaded as party respondents to the application. The persons who are required to be impleaded were not even named. In the circumstance, there was no question of anybody believing that this order permitted the applicant to amend the revision application. Thus, the amendment is illegal and the same will have to be ignored. 4. Misc.Application No. 147 of 2007 filed by the applicant is in respect of commission of the offences under the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the learned Judge in the impugned order has at para.9 concluded that there is no material on record to direct investigation for the offences * 4 * under the Prevention of Corruption Act and he can only direct investigation in respect of the offences allegedly committed under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. As regards the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, the jurisdiction to direct investigation thereunder being invested with the concerned magistrate, he had directed that the applicant needs to file a fresh complaint in the court of the learned magistrate. I find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Special Judge. Since all the offences alleged in Misc.Application No. 147 of 2007 are under the provisions of Indian Penal Code, it was necessary for the applicant to file a complaint before the concerned Magistrate and seek directions for investigation into the same. In the circumstances, the revision application is dismissed. [SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J.]