SHELAT, J. :- This is an application in revision against the order passed by the learned Presidency Magistrate, IVth Court, Girgaum, whereby re dismissed under S. 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code the complaint filed by the petitioner on the 31-10-1956. The application raises points of interest in regard to the scope of the powers of Magistrates under Chapter XVI of the Criminal Procedure Code.

2. Before we go to the several contentions raised on behalf of the parties in somewhat elaborate arguments, it would be expedient to set out a few facts relevant for the purposes of this judgment.

3. It is a well-known fact that, in the evening of the 3-6-1956, a public meeting was held at Chowpaty which was to be addressed by the Prime Minister of India. It is equally a well-known fact that considerable disturbance was caused at that meeting as a result whereof that meeting had to be dispersed. Consequently large crowds began to wander about in various localities around Chowpaty including the area around Charni Road Station. It is the case of the petitioner that at about 8 p. m., that day, his younger brother Sitaram Ghadigaonkar, was crossing the road from the up side of Charni Road Railway platform near a building called Laud Mansion. At that time there was a large crowd on that road and members of that crowd were stopping vehicles passing by that road. One taxi, which had come from the side of Opera House and was attempting to go towards Church-gate was already stopped. Sitaram was accompanied at this time by Shashikant Kamtekar and one Nandkumar Ganpat Vagal. While they were trying to cross the road or had in fact crossed the road, these three persons heard revolver shots and on looking back they found that a Bhayya was injured by one of these shots and was lying on the footpath opposite Charni Road Station. It is the case of the petitioner that thereupon Sitaram and his friends went up to that Bhayya in order to give him aid, and it was at this stage one more shot was fired by one of the occupants in the blue car which was on the left side of the road at that time near the taxi which had been stopped by the crowd and was trying to overtake that taxi from the left side in order to go towards Churchgate. According to the petitioner, this blue car, which was attempting to go towards Churchgate. was near the footpath on the left side when the shots were fired. The last shot that was so fired struck Sitaram as a result of which he died almost instantaneously and before he could be removed to a hospital.

4. The petitioner thereafter made inquiry with the Commissioner of Police, Bombay, if he had any intention of taking steps against the respondent who, according to the petitioner, had fired the shot which killed his brother.

5. It would seem that the respondent had gone to Gamdevi Police Station that night when he informed the Police that while he was returning from the meeting at Chowpaty and was proceeding from the side of Opera House towards Churchgate in the car belonging to Mr. K. K. Shah, an Advocate of this Court, that car was surrounded by a mob of 200 or 300 persons who were rowdy in the extreme, that a taxi had already been stopped by that mob, that their car also was stopped, that one of the occupants of their car was manhandled by the crowd, that some of the persons in that crowd also handled him roughly with the result that his shirt was torn and he was deprived of his papers and cash of Rs. 35/-, that these persons then tried to drag him out of the car and that he in fact sustained some injuries upon his neck. The officer of Gamdevi Police Station sent him to Nair Hospital for examination. He was treated there but it is said that although the medical authorities asked him to stay in the hospital the respondent declined.

6. The version of Shashikant Kamtekar, Nandkumar Vagal, Prabhakar Dhole and Subodh Janardhan, who claimed to be eye-witnesses of the incident that took place near Laud Mansion, was that Shashikant and