Judgment

HEGDE, J.: - The appellant was tried and convicted by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, 1st Court, Broach under Section 55 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs l00/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three weeks. In appeal that conviction was affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Broach. In his revision petition before the High Court of Gujarat, the principal contention taken by him was that the learned Magistrate was not competent to take cognizance of the case against him, as there was no complaint as required by Section 72 of the Act. The revision petition was admitted for hearing and notice issued to the respondent but when the matter came up for hearing before Raju, J., the learned Judge rejected the revision petition with these cryptic remarks:

"Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. I do not wish to exercise my revisional jurisdiction in this matter."

2. Thereafter this appeal we; brought after obtaining a certificate from the High Court under Article 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellant