MADHU MALU GADEKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicant is absent. His counsel is also absent. When the matter was listed on 29th April, 2008, time to file detailed synopsis was extended by one week and if the synopsis was not filed within the stipulated period, it was ordered that applicant would pay rs. 750/- as costs payable to the High Court legal Services, Sub-committee, Nagpur within a period of four weeks thereafter. Applicant has neither filed detailed synopsis within the stipulated period nor he has paid costs, as ordered. No further extension is sought and today, as aforesaid, none appears for applicant.

(2.) Under Section 403, Cr. P. C. it is provided that no party has any right to be heard either personally or by pleader before any Court exercising its powers of revision and it is at the option of the Court to hear the parties. Looking to the nature of challenge and indifferent attitude of the applicant, I deem it fit and proper to dispose of the revision at this stage only. Rule has already been issued in the matter vide order dated 30-8-2004. I have heard Mr. Doifode, learned APP for respondent-State and with his assistance I have gone through the judgments of Courts below and entire material available on record.

(3.) It is set out as a ground in the memo of revision that the impugned orders suffer from lack of inherent jurisdiction, because in view of the provisions contained in Section 155 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no police officer can investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. On perusal of the impugned judgments, I find that this ground has been raised for the first time. Be that as it may, Section 460, Cr. P. C. clearly provides that if any Magistrate, not empowered by law to do, but takes cognizance under clause (a) or clause (b) of Section 190 (1), cr. P. C. and does that thing erroneously in good faith, the proceedings shall not be set aside merely on the ground of his not being so empowered and that is such an irregularity which does not vitiate the proceedings. First ground raised by the applicant, therefore, fails.