1 crpil-21 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICUATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL P I L NO. 21 OF 2010 Ketan K. Tirodkar. ... .... Petitioner. Versus Union of India & Ors. ... .... Respondents. Mr. Ketan Tirodkar, Petitioner present -in person. Mr. P. A. Pol, PP for the State. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE AND A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2010. P. C.: We have heard Mr. Tirodkar, the petitioner, party-in-person. 2. In this public interest petition while relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jamiruddin Ansari v/s. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 316, Mr. Tirodkar seeks directions against the Union of India and the State of Maharashtra to delete Section 2(d) of the Criminal Procedure Code and to replace the word “investigation” by the word “inquiry” in Section 23(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code by the State of Maharashtra. He further 2 crpil-21 prays for directions to the State of Maharashtra to issue a notification declaring the Investigation Officer under the MCOC Act as a Magistrate within the meaning of the Criminal Procedure Code. 3. We are afraid, we cannot entertain the petition to issue the directions as prayed for and to enact new Act or to amend an existing Act, is in the exclusive domain of the Parliament or the Legislative Assembly. In our opinion, it is for the petitioner to approach the Central Law Commission or the State Law Commission with appropriate representation. 4. Hence the petition is rejected with liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation to the Central / State Law Commission. Sd/- Sd/- (A. A. SAYED, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)