BHOJRAJ KISAN BHAGAI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the order dated 31-12-2001 passed by the learned J. M. F. C. in Summary Criminal Case No. 733 of 1998 has been challenged whereby the complaint lodged by respondents No. 2 was registered as regular criminal case for the offences punishable under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 145 and 147 (e) of the Bombay police Act.

(2.) Brief facts are as under :

(3.) Mr. Kasat learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the magistrate has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence punishable under prevention of Corruption Act and he has no power to order investigation under section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of such offence on a private complaint. In support of these submissions he relied on the decision of Supreme Court in (A. R. Antulay v. Ramdas Srinivas Nayak) 1984 (1) bom. C. R. 345 (S. C. ) : 1984 (2) S. C. C. 500, wherein it has been held that the special Judge alone is competent to take cognizance of the offence specified in the Act. The Bench was considering section 8 of Criminal Law Amendment act, 1952 which is identically worded, in paragraph 18 of the decision Desai j. , who spoke for the bench has stated that under section 8 of the Special judge shall not take cognizance on commitment of the accused. "it positively conferred power on Special Judge to take cognizance of offence and it negatively removed any concept of commitment. He also relied on the decision of Kerala High court in (State of Kerala v. Navab Rajendran) , VI 1994 (2) Crimes 321.