Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.-On the allegations of committing theft and illegally exporting the monuments and statues from various temples and other protected placed of archaeological importance, Police Station Vidhyadhar Nagar Jaipur City arrested petitioner in criminal case bearing FIR No. 146/2003 under Sections 379, 411, 413, 414, 401, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and 3/25(1), 5, 14/25(2) of the Antiquities & Art Treasures Act 1972 (for short ‘AAT Act’) and submitted charge sheet in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) cum Judicial Magistrate No. 21, Jaipur City. The petitioner by moving application under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘CrPC’) read with Section 26 AAT Act raised objections as to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to take cognizance of offence under AAT Act. It was interalia stated in the application that in view of Section 26 of AAT Act, only an officer authorised by the Central Govt. could institute the complaint and investigation for the offences under AAT Act could not be undertaken by the Police. Therefore, the order taking cognizance for the offence under AAT Act was without jurisdiction. The order dated September 3, 2003 whereby the said application was dismissed by the learned Magistrate, has been assailed in criminal Revision Petition No. 1166/2003.

2. Since the case under Section 413 IPC is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions Judge Jaipur City. The committal order dated September 3, 2003 of the learned Magistrate has been impugned in Miscellaneous Petition No. 1213/2003.

3. After the case was transferred for trial to the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jaipur City, the SHO Police Station Jigna District Shiv Pun (M.P.) moved application seeking permission to take the petitioner in custody for the purpose of investigation of a criminal case instituted against the petitioner with Police Station Jigna. The order dated September 29, 2003 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, No. 1, Jaipur City, whereby the petitioner was given in the custody of SHO Police Station Jigna now P.S. Karera has been called in question in Miscellaneous Petition No. 1142/2003.

4. In Miscellaneous Petition No. 75/2004 the order dated December 3, 2003 of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur City is under challenge whereby the application of the petitioner for supply of 358 coloured photographs of the statues/idols and 68 catalogues of idols/statues of American Auction House recovered at the instance of various accused was rejected.

5. I have pondered over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material placed before me. Since

the questions involved in all these four petitions are interconnected, they are taken up together for disposal. REVISION PETITION NO. 1166/2003

6. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that provisions contained in Section 26 AAT Act are mandatory and non compliance of these provisions would cause miscarriage ofjustice. Since the report lodged in the Police Station Vidhyadhar Nagar for the offences under AAT Act was itself illegal, no cognizance could be taken under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC. Provisions of Section 26 AAT Act only envisaged filing of complaint by a competent officer authorised by the Central Government and C.I. Police Station Vidhadhar Nagar who lodged the FIR was not competent to lodge the FIR and initiate investigation. Reliance is placed on Govind Mehta vs. State of Bihar (1), Ballabh Das Agarwala vs. J.C. Chakravorty (2), Union of India vs. Prakash Hinduja (3), M.D. Sakur vs. State (4), In re T.C. Nichodemus (5), Jaswant Singh vs. State of Punjab (6) and Badri Narayan vs. State of Rajasthan (7).

7. Having gone through the case diary I find that authorisation letter bearing No. 10-10/2003 dated September 2, 2003 as required by Section 26 AAT Act was issued by Director General, Indian Archaeolo