1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Revision Application No. 181/2008 Laxman Gomaji Gohane ..vs.. State of Maharashtra, thr. PSO Mul, Chandrapur and 3 ors. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Sirpurkar, Advocate for applicant. Mr. Kale, A.P.P. for non applicant no.1 Mr. Mardikar, Advocate for non applicant nos. 2 to 4. CORAM:- R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED:- 31 th AUGUST, 2009 1. Non applicant nos. 2 to 4 faced trial before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mul in Summary Criminal Case No. 384/2004 under Section 188 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mul by his judgment and order dated 09.06.2008 acquitted non applicant nos. 2 to 4 against which this revision is filed by applicant, who was the complainant and who had filed the first information report. 2. I have heard learned Advocate Mr. Sirpurkar. The learned J.M.F.C. acquitted non applicant nos. 2 to 4 on two grounds. (i) As there was no proclamation issued by the competent Authority so as to make it operative, non applicant nos. 2 to 4 cannot be held responsible for 2 violation of provisions of Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. (ii) As the complaint was not filed by an officer, who is considered as competent, keeping in view the provisions of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the lodgment of the prosecution against non applicant nos. 2 to 4 was improper and, therefore, non applicant nos. 2 to 5 deserve acquittal. 3. After having considered the entire judgment and arguments, I am inclined to observe that the learned Judicial magistrate First Class, Mul has taken a correct view of the matter as the points raised by him go to the root of the matter and they pertain to taking cognizance of a particular proceeding. In my view, no different view can be taken by this Court and the order of acquittal cannot be interfered in the revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the application is required to be dismissed at the stage of admission. Hence, following order is passed. The revision is dismissed at the stage of admission. JUDGE kahale