JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition arises out of the proceedings initiated in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur on a complaint filed by the Station House Officer, Police Station, Division-A, Jodhpur against the non-petitioner Kishan for the offence under section 186 Indian Penal Code. 2. A case against the non-petitioner Kishan was registered on an oral report of Head Constable Babu Singh, Traffic Police, Jodhpur on.May 1, 1976. The learned Magistrate proceeded with the trial. At the time of the arguments, the jurisdiction of the Court to take cognizance in the matter was challenged by the learned counsel for the accused Kishan, non-petitioner in this Court. The learned Magistrate in view of the provisions of Section 195 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure opined that the complaint having not been filed by the officer concerned or any other authority to which he was administratively subordinate, Court was not competent to take cognizance of the case. In view of that finding the learned Magistrate by the impugned order dated February 9, 1977 acquitted the non-petitioner Kishan for the offence under section 186 Indian Penal Code. 3. The State of Rajasthan preferred the petition for leave to appeal under section 378 (iii) of the Criminal Procedure Code against that order. 4. At the time of admission this Court observed that the bare reading of the order shows that in the circumstances the order does not amount to acquittal and therefore, at the request of the learned Public Prosecutor the leave to appeal was treated as revision petition subject to any objection from the other side. 5. Notice was issued to the non-petitioner Kishan who put in appearance on April 15, 1978 but neither he nor any body on his behalf appeared at the time of the hearing of the petition. 6. Mr. H.N. Calla, learned Public Prosecutor did not challenge the finding of the learned Magistrate that Station House Officer, Police Station, Division-A, Jodhpur was not the person competent to file the complaint as provided in Sec. 195(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure but has challenged the legality of the order or acquittal. 7. According to Mr. 6. Mr. H.N. Calla, learned Public Prosecutor did not challenge the finding of the learned Magistrate that Station House Officer, Police Station, Division-A, Jodhpur was not the person competent to file the complaint as provided in Sec. 195(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure but has challenged the legality of the order or acquittal. 7. According to Mr. Calla, if the Court was of the opinion that it had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case the proper course was to return the complaint to the complainant and therefore, the order so far as it relates to the acquittal part should be set aside. In support of his argument he referred to the case of State v. Kathi Umad Ranning and ors. AIR 1955 Saurashtra 10 a Division Bench decision of the Saurashtra High Court The facts of that case were very much similar to the present case. There also the Head Constable made a report to the Sub-Inspector complaining of obstruction by the respondent in discharge of his official duty. The Sub-Inspector filed the complaint under section 186 Indian Penal Code. The Court came to the conclusion that the complaint was not filed by a proper person and as the compliance of the provisions of Sec. 195(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a condition precedent to the Court assuming jurisdiction, failure to do so will vitiate the entire proceedings as being without jurisdiction. Just as in the case on hand, in the Saurashtra case (supra) also the learned Magistrate after the trial held that he had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence in the absence of a proper complaint as required by Section 195 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and acquitted the respondent. Their Lordships of the High Court were of the opinion that the Magistrate having taken cognizance of the offence in the absence of a proper complaint all the subsequent proceedings were void and the proper order would have been to return the charge sheet to the police. 8. If the learned Magistrate had taken jurisdiction in a case, without having jurisdiction to do so, all subsequent proceedings in the matter being void stood vitiated and therefore, he should not have decided the case on merits i.e. to say, there was no justification in passing the order of acquittal. 8. If the learned Magistrate had taken jurisdiction in a case, without having jurisdiction to do so, all subsequent proceedings in the matter being void stood vitiated and therefore, he should not have decided the case on merits i.e. to say, there was no justification in passing the order of acquittal. The proper course in such cases is to drop the proceedings which may amount to discharge of the accused so that it may be open to the prosecution to regulate the proceedings by filing a fresh complaint against the accused if they think it proper. 9. In this view of the matter the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate is not justified. 10. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate is set aside and the proceedings are quashed.Revision allowed. *******