The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Madhya Pradesh Dacoity and Vyapaharan Prabhavit Kshetra Act, 1981, emphasizing the power of the Special Court to take cognizance and administer justice based on the merits of the case.

ORDER :

This revision has been preferred by the petitioners impugning the order dated 25th July, 2005 passed by the Special Judge, Gwalior appointed under section 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Dacoity and Vyapaharan Prabhavit Kshetra Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), in Special Case No. 42/2005, whereby the learned judge has taken cognizance against all the eight petitioners under section 190 of Criminal Procedure Code read with section 8 of the Act for the offence punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 341 and 397 of Indian Penal Code read with section 11/13 of the Act.

2. With regard to the incident happened on 8-2-2005 at about 19:20 hours, one FIR was lodged by the complainant Udaiveer at police station Dabra Distt. Gwalior. The relevant extracts of which are as under :-

The names of all the petitioners have been mentioned in the FIR. It was registered at Crime No. 63/05 under sections 341, 307, 302, 147, 148, 149 and 397 of Indian Penal Code along with section 11/13 of the Act against eleven accused persons viz. (1) Baktawar Singh, (2) Palvinder Singh @ Kaka, (3) Narendra Singh, (4) Sukhdev @ Sukka, (5) Binder Singh, (6) Haria @ Hari Singh, (7) Gurulal, (8) Jitendra Singh, (9) Lalla Gadariya, (10) Bhura Gadariya and (11) Mewa Gadariya. During the course of investigation, only one accused Hari Singh was arrested whose remand was taken from the learned Judge (Special Judge) as the case was related to some specified offences under the Act. During pendency of this investigation, an application was moved on behalf of one of the accused persons, on which the investigation was transferred to CID. On perusal of case diary particularly page (parcha) No. 85 dated 2-3-2005, it appears that up to that stage investigation was conducted by Mukesh Kumar Shrivastava SDO (police) Dabra, and statements of Mahip @Teeto, Popa, Raju, Udaiveer and Dharmvir were recorded under section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code. Thereafter on the direction of senior officers of police dated 22-2-2005, it was handed over to Devendra Singh Siroliya D.S.P. (CID) Gwalior.

3. On 28th June, 2005, challan was filed against only four accused persons namely Lalla Gadariya, Mewa Gadariya, Bhura Gadariya and Maan Singh Gadariya which includes three out of aforementioned accused along with one Maan Singh Gadariya as aforesaid, on which special Sessions Trial No. 42/05 was registered. In challan, all the four accused persons were shown absconding, hence statement of investigating officer was recorded, being satisfied, the accused were declared absconding and directed to record evidence in their absence as provided under section 299 of Criminal Procedure Code for which further date 7th September, 2007 was fixed. On the same day, an application under section 190, Criminal Procedure Code was filed on behalf of the complainant Udaiveer. For reply and argument of the application, the case was fixed for 12th July, 2005. The case was adjourned for 2-3 dates on the request of the parties. On 18th July, 2005, it was mentioned on behalf of the State not to file the reply. Arguments on the application were heard and the impugned order was passed on 25th July, 2005. On perusal of this order, it appears that after considering the statements recorded during investigation, legal aspects and the facts of the case, the learned Judge has taken cognizance against the petitioners. Thus, the contention on behalf of the petitioners that without considering the evidence, merely on the basis that petitioners were nominated in the FIR the learned Judge has taken cognizance, appears not correct.

4. On perusal of the first order-sheet dated 8th July, 2005, of the Case No. 16/06 of the Court of the learned Judge, it appears that one application under section 169, Criminal Procedure Code was also filed by the same officer, who filed the challan, on the same date i.e. on 28th June, 2005, with regard to discharge of the accused Hari Singh, who was arrested and was taken on remand. It