ATUL KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of Criminal Revision No. 219 of 1994, also as in both these petitions same legal issue has been raised. The facts have, however, been taken from Criminal Revision No. 14 of 1995.

(2.) Proceedings have been initiated u/S. 39 of the Madhya Pradesh Vinirdhistha Bhiashta Acharan Niwaran Adhiniyam, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam). The initiation of these proceedings was challenged in the Court below. It was contended that there is non-compliance of Section 39 of the Adhiniyam. It was specifically urged that cognizance of this case could not be taken because there was no direction given by the State Government of the officer authorised by a notification under the Section. It be seen that Section 39 was amended in 1984. It would, therefore, be apt to notice the amended as well as unamended provisions. These read as under.

(3.) A perusal of the above provisions indicates that there is material difference between the amended and the unamended Section. Under the unamended statute a Court was not supposed to take cognizance unless and until it was so directed by the State Government. Unamended provision have since been interpreted by this Court in State of M. P. v. Harishankar Goel, 1984 Jab LJ 324 : (1985 Cri LJ 1714). It was observed (at p. 1715 of Cri LJ) :