HINDU MUNNANI Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three revisions are disposed of together by a common order, since the question involved is identical. In these criminal revisions, orders sought to be revised have been passed by the District Judge, Madras in Crl.M.P. Nos. 343, 351 and 353 of 1993, when the petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of the said Court under Sec. 8(8) of the "Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Sec. 8(8)of the Act reads as follows:

(2.) THE need to approach the District Judge, Madras under Sec. 8(8) of the Act arose in view of the notification issued by the Commissioner of Police on 14.12.1992, which reads as follows:

(3.) REPLYING to this contention, Mr. K.A. Panchapagesan, petitioners counsel submitted that the District Judge had numbered these petitions filed before him under S. 8(8) or under sec. 7(4) of the Act as Crl. Miscellaneous Petitions and, therefore, these revisions were filed invoking the revisional powers of this court under S. 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He, anyhow, contended that this court can always exercise the power in the interest of justice to convert the criminal revisions into petitions under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India and dispose them of in accordance with law.