-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2701 OF 2008 Anirudha Raghunath Mirgunde ... Petitioner vs. Senior Inspector of Police and others ... Respondents Mr. Prashant Hagare for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Gadkari, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State. CORAM: BILAL NAZKI & ANOOP V. MOHTA , JJ. DATE: JANUARY 22, 2009 P.C. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. Challenge in this petition is to the notice issued by the police authorities to the petitioner to appear in the Police Station. This notice is purported to have been issued in pursuance of proceedings initiated under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the show cause notice under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. was sought to be served on the petitioner. When the petitioner was not available at his house, the impugned notice was pasted at his house. -2- 3. We have nothing on record to show that any notice under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. was ever tried to be served on the petitioner. The Magistrates, who have power in the State under chapter proceedings, are unfortunately police officers and when they exercise the powers as Magistrates, they forget that they are not working as Magistrates. This is a dichotomy which is seriously hampering the judicial system in the State. Time and again we had expressed the desire that Government should reconsider the decision that the power of the Magistrates should not be in the hands of the police officers. But unfortunately, the government has not done anything in the matter so far. 4. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is clearly arbitrary and without jurisdiction and the same is quashed. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. BILAL NAZKI, J. ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.