DEEPAK Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this miscellaneous petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 15.01.2010 whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Cognizance of offence under Section 3/4 of Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinances, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the R.P.G.O.") were taken against the petitioner vide order dated 29.05.2009. Aggrieved by the order of cognizance, petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Session Judge. The revision petition so preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed, hence this petition.

(2.) THE only argument raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the offence under Section 3/4 of the R.P.G.O. is non -cognizable offence, hence without compliance of the provisions of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. the police was not having authority to search and make investigation. The aforesaid aspect was not properly considered by learned Revisional Court whereas the provisions of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. are mandatory in nature. This Court in the case of Vikky v. State of Rajasthan reported in, 2006 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 133 held that for non -cognizable offence, compliance of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. is mandatory.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.