ORDER :

1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed praying to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 16.08.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Dharmapuri in Crl. M.P. No. 4289 of 2017 in C.C. No. 132 of 2007, to examine the correctness of the findings therein and to set aside the same and discharge the petitioner from the said case.

2. The respondent police registered the case in Crime No. 28 of 2013. After investigation, the respondent police laid the charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Dharmapuri. The learned Magistrate taken the charge-sheet on file in C.C. No. 132 of 2017. In the said case, the petitioner herein was arrayed as A-5. During the pendency of the said calendar case, the petitioner herein filed the petition under Section 239 Cr.P.C. to discharge him from the said case. The learned Magistrate, after taking the petition on file in Crl. M.P. No. 4289 of 2017, dismissed the same. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed the present Revision.

3.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the registration of FIR in Crime No. 28 of 2013 by the respondent alleging commission of offence of Transplantation of removal of human organs itself is illegal and unsustainable in law, in view of the specific provision under the Transplantation of human organs and Tissues Act, 1994. Any investigation, that is said to have been conducted by the respondent pursuant to the said FIR consequently is illegal and void and abinitio.

3.2. There is specific procedure contemplated therein for carrying out investigation and filing of a complaint, however, the respondent, in order to circumvent it, had resorted to filing its final report by deliberately arraying offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code though the FIR in the case alleged commission of offences punishable under TOHO and Tissues Act also.

3.3. The learned Magistrate, despite the petitioner brought to notice about the judgment dated 18.02.2015 passed in Crl. O.P. No. 17336 of 2013 in the case of Dr. Ganesan vs. State, 2015 (3) MWN Crl. 456 (DB) and the law laid down therein, failed to appreciate the legal position and chose to violate the same and committed error in rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner for discharge.

3.4 He would further submit that the impugned order was passed in respect of the FIR dated 12.06.2013 in Crime No. 29 of 2013 in which the petitioner is arrayed as third accused. The learned Magistrate overlooked the clear and specific findings of this Court in the above referred to judgment. The Magistrate failed to appreciate the legal proposition that when an alleged act constitutes an offence under a special statute, which prescribes specific procedures to be followed, there cannot be any deviation from the same. If the acts alleged constitute offences of transplantation and removal of human organs without authority or in any illegal manner, then the same is to be investigated only by the appropriate authority under Section 13(3)(iv) of the TOHO and Tissues Act and a complaint to be filed under Section 22 of the said Act and not by the respondent or other Police officers under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Even in the FIR registered in Crime No. 28 of 2013, the name of the petitioner was not found and subsequently arrayed as A-5 in the charge-sheet. The petitioner having already challenged the FIR in Crime No. 29 of 2013 and orders having been passed by this court, prohibiting investigation by the respondent police, the present Final Report filed by the respondent Police in crime No. 28 of 2013 implicating the petitioner also as an accused is thoroughly illegal and tainted with mala-fides. The petitioner has been made as an accused in the FIR in Crime No. 28 of 2013, as was done in the FIR in Crime No. 29 of 2013, he would have challenged the same before this Court and obtained similar order. Therefore, the trial court failed to look into the legal prov