( 1 ) RULE. Learned A. P. P. Mr. M. A. Patel, waives the service of the Rule on behalf of respondent-State of Gujarat.

( 2 ) THE petitioners have challenged legality, validity and propriety of orders passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rapar, District Kutch-Bhuj, dated 2-6-1997, in the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 249 of 1997, taking cognizance of the offence registered at Rapar Police Station, vide Crime Register C. R. No. 3 of 1997, dated 14-1-1997,; and had committed the case to the Sessions Court, district Kutch. The petitioners have also challenged legality, validity and propriety of orders passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, District Kutch-Bhuj, dated 9-6-1998, in the proceedings of Sessions Case No. 62 of 1997.

( 3 ) THE present petitioners are facing prosecution for the offences made punishable under Sees. 143, 147, t48, 149, 186, 332, 333 and 307 of Indian Penal code, in respect to an incident whichis registered as offence at Rapar Police Station vide Crime Register C. R. No, 3of 1997 on 14-1-1997; that according to prosecution First Information Report was lodged on 14-1- 1997, at Rapar Police Station, around 20-30 hours against present petitioners alleging that when a police party of a prohibition; squad led; by Police Subi-Inspector 0. M. Raval went to the house of petitioner No. I (accused No. 1) for the purpose of carrying out a prohibition raid on receipt of intelligenceteport; petitioners formed an unlawful assembly with a common object wise foreeand violence with deadly weapons and to cause rioting and assault on police party led by Police Sub-Inspector 0. M. Raval with a view to resist the naid being carried out on the said house. It is also alleged by the prosecution that during the said incident, an attempt on life of P. S. I. 0. M. Raval, was a|so made by deadly; weapons by present petitioners, and thereby petitioners were airested and investigation was made in respect to said offence. That petitioners were committed to Sessions. Court by. learned J. M. F. C. , rapar, District Kutch, and the case was registered as Sessions Case No. 62 of 1997, after following prescribed procedure under Sec, 209 of the Cr. P. C. vide impugned order dated 2-6-1997.

( 4 ) THAT present petitioners had, moved, an aapplication Ex. 15 in the proceedings of Sessions Case No. 62 of 1997, contending. that cognizance taken by learned j. M. F. C. , Rapar in respect to Criminal Case No. 249 of 1997, which has arisen from. Crime Register C. R. No. 3 of ,1997, dated 14-1-1997, registered at Rapar Police (Station, is illegal and without; jurisdiction on the ground,that one of the offences charged against present petitioners as accused of said Criminal Case; No. 249 of 1997, the offence made punishable under Sec. 186 of Indian Penal Code. That the cognizance*of said offence is;;barred under See. 195 (1 ) (a) (i) of Code of Criminal procedure, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as the Code), unless the complaint is made in writing to the Court by specified officer or subordinate officer, to the said specified officer who is a public servant.

( 5 ) THAT learned Addl. Sessions Judge heard the parties and vide impugned orders dated 9-6-1998, rejected the said application of the present petitioners anddirected to frame charge against the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners have filed present revision Application as stated hereinabove.

( 6 ) LEARNED Advocate Mr. K. B. Anandjiwala has assailed the impugned orders contending that Sec. 195 (l) (a) (i) prescribe a bar of taking cognizance in respect to offences specified therein. That Sec. 186 is one of the sections as specified under sec. 195 (1 ) (a) (i) of the Code. Thereby unless a complaint in writing is made by the public servant who is alleged to have been voluntarily obstructed in due discharge of his duties, or any subordinate officer to him no Court can take cognizance of such offence. Shri Anandjiwala has referred to and relied on definition of, "complaint