State vs Muneer Ahmed

(II) Ranbir Penal Code:,Offences Under

(a) Counterfeit Coining, Note Forgery &

Professional Poisoning.","Chapter (XVIII) 463 to 477-A, 489-A to

489-E, 326 & 328.

Code and, would require much tailoring of the notification. Column '2'of Sub-clause (a) of Annexure 'A' of the aforesaid notification has to be",

given a combined reading so as to contort its real meaning. Column I enumerates the specified acts of omission and commission and Column 2,

specifically mentions the sections of the Ranbir Penal Code under which acts indicating in Clause (I) are covered. In other words, it is quite clear",

that the Officer-in-Charge of the said Police Station can register a case and proceed with the investigation only if the facts contained in the FIR,

disclose the offences related to the nature of accusations specified in Clause (I) of sub-clause (a).,

In our view, it is clearly gatherable that in those offences which are disclosed in the FIR and pertaining to Counterfeit, Coining, Note, Forgery",

and Professional Poisoning specifically mentioned in Column 1 of Clause(a) and falling within the ambit of offence under the sections of Ranbir,

Penal Code indicating under Clause (II), cannot be taken cogniance by the Crime Branch, either for registering a case or to go ahead with the",

investigation. This answers the Questions No. I and II.,

Section 440 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contemplates (no party has a right to be heard either personally or by a pleader before any,

Court when exercising its powers of revision). In case reported as Md. Abdul Haji v. State of Assam, (1985) 2 Crimes 722, a revision petition",

was disposed of on merits, in the absence of parties. A review petition was filed under Article 226 read with Section 22 of the Constitution of",

India, to recall that order. The High Court refused to entertain the petition in its writ jurisdiction. Therefore, it cannot be said that this section",

violates the principles of natural justice. So far as question of right of audience is concerned, nobody has a right to be heard in a revision. It is",

purely discretionary with the High Court whether it will hear any party in a revision or not. We have, therefore, no manner of doubt that the High",

Court has the powers to dispose of the revision petition on merits, even in the absence of parties/accused or when his counsel did not appear, in",

exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Section 440 Cr.P.C. It is well-settled that if a Bench of coordinate jurisdiction disagrees with another Bench,

of coordinate jurisdiction, it is appropriate that the matter be referred to larger Bench rather than to leave two conflicting judgments to operate,",

creating confusion, as is held by the Supreme Court in Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sadho v. Jagdish, (2001) 2 SCC 247. This answers the third question.",

Thus, looking to the facts and circumstances of the cases, the nature of accusation and gravamen of the offences said to have been committed",

by the accused, we are of the view that the FIR registered in both the cases, investigation conducted and challan presented before the Trial Court",

shall be deemed to be under the orders of the Court. It is further directed that the Trial Court, shall re-admit the challan to its original number and",

proceed to decide it in accordance with law, within a reasonable time. The direction given in this case, shall not, however, be taken as a precedent",

in any other case.,

The reference stands answered accordingly and disposed of as such.,