The State thereupon preferred a Revision Application to the Sessions Court, Bijapur.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 14 6 1971 of the Mysore High Court in Criminal Revi sion Petition No.
This led to the filing of a Revision Application by the State before the High Court.
The view taken by the learned Magistrate was that under Section 60 clause b as amended by Mysore Ordinance No.
4 of 1970 which represented the law as it then stood, it was number companypetent to him to take companynizance of an offence punishable under Section 34, except on the companyplaint or report of an Excise Officer and since the chargesheet in the present case was filed by the police and number by an Excise Officer, he was precluded from taking companynizance of the offence.
The learned Judicial Magistrate on this view directed that the charge sheet be returned to the police and ordered release of the respond ent.
The High Court too summarily rejected the Revision Application and hence the State pre ferred the present appeal with special leave obtained from this Court.
16 of 1972.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
229 of 1971.
The facts giving rise to the appeal are few and briefly stated as follows On 1st October, 1970 the police filed a chargesheet against the respondent in the companyrt of the Judicial Magis trate, First Class, Badami, charging him with having companymit ted an offence punishable under Section 34 of the Mysore Excise Act, 1965.
The learned Judicial MagiStrate by an order dated 3rd October, 1970 refused to take companynizance of the offence on this charge sheet, since it was filed by the Police and number by an Excise official.
Nettar, for the Appellant.
R. Nataraja, for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI, J. This appeal by special leave raises a short but interesting question of law.
