JUDGMENT : S.K. Gupta, J. We have heard Mr. B.S. Manhas, learned Senior Additional Advocate General appearing for the petitioners, as well as M/s Sunil Sethi, Romesh Arora, B.L. Kalgotra and Nitin Bhasin, learned advocates for the respondents, in extenso. 2. In both the Criminal Revision No. 78/1998, entitled State v. Muneer Ahmed and Ors. and Criminal Revision No. 10/1999, entitled State v. Bharti Katoch and Anr., the identical questions of law formulated by learned Single Judge vide order dated 12-5-2000 and referred for determination/decision by a larger bench as under: (I) Whether only those offences which are mentioned in Column No. 1 can be taken cognizance of by the Crime Branch? (II) Whether what is said in Column No. 1 limits the jurisdiction of the Crime Branch to those offences only which are specifically covered by Column No. 1? (III) Whether a judgment given in the absence of the accused would have a binding effect on another Single Judge? 3. It is not in dispute that First Information Report was registered in both the cases with Police Station, Crime Branch, Jammu. On the completion of investigation, the challans were presented in the Court against the accused. The Trial Court declined to take cognizance of the challans, in which the accused were charged for the commission of offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B Ranbir Penal code on the ground that the Crime Branch was not competent to take cognizance and investigate the aforesaid offences in the facts and circumstances of the cases. 4. Clause (o) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Samvat 1989 (Act No. XXIV of 1989) under which this notification, SRO 133 of 1991, dated 2nd April, 1991 issued by the Government, empowers the Crime Branch to investigate the offences under local and Special laws and relevant sections of the Ranbir Penal Code indicated in Annexure A to the notification. 5. Offences under Ranbir Penal code cognisable by the Police Station, Crime Branch are enumerated in Clause (II) of Annexure 'A' to the notification, and its relevant portion is reproduced hereunder: (II) Ranbir Penal Code: Offences Under (a) Counterfeit Coining, Note Forgery & Professional Poisoning. Chapter (XVIII) 463 to 477-A, 489-A to 489-E, 326 & 328. 6. 5. Offences under Ranbir Penal code cognisable by the Police Station, Crime Branch are enumerated in Clause (II) of Annexure 'A' to the notification, and its relevant portion is reproduced hereunder: (II) Ranbir Penal Code: Offences Under (a) Counterfeit Coining, Note Forgery & Professional Poisoning. Chapter (XVIII) 463 to 477-A, 489-A to 489-E, 326 & 328. 6. Construed in the context of definition under Clause (o) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it prima facie transpires that the State Government, under the above notification SRO 133, has declared the Office of Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Kashmir and Office of Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Jammu to be Police Stations. Clause (I) of Annexure A to the not if cation pertains to cognizance of the offences to be taken by the Crime Branch under local and Special Laws explicitly indicated therein. Police Stations under Criminal Penal Code are created to enable the Officers-in-Charge thereof, to register the information relating to the commissions of cognisable offences and to investigate the same in order to file its report before the Magistrate competent with the cognizance so that the persons found accused of the offences are appropriately punished. Therefore, Police Stations can be created where cases can be registered without any barrier relating to territory or the place of occurrence as also the nature of offences alleged to have been committed. Such Police Stations will be of general nature. However, the State Government in its wisdom and for any good reason can create a Police Station for a defined reason, i.e., for registering a case committed within a particular geographical limits or in relation to commission of offences of particular nature or offences committed by or against a particular class or person or property and so on and so forth. The Police Station so created will be the Police Stations having special jurisdiction. 7. In the present case under notification dated 2nd April 1991, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch. Jammu and also the Office of Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Srinagar, have been declared to be the Police Stations for the purposes of investigation of offences under local and Special Laws and the relevant sections of the Penal Code, as indicated in Annexure 'A' to the aforesaid notification. Jammu and also the Office of Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Srinagar, have been declared to be the Police Stations for the purposes of investigation of offences under local and Special Laws and the relevant sections of the Penal Code, as indicated in Annexure 'A' to the aforesaid notification. Therefore, on a plain reading of the notification, it is quite clear that the Officer-in-Charge of the said Police Station can register a case and proceed with the investigation only if the facts contained in the FIR disclose the offences enumerated in Chapter (XVIII) of the Ranbir Penal code and indicated in Column 2. Then it would be competent on the part of the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station constituted under the said notification to proceed with the investigation thereof. 8. Shri B.S. Manhas, learned senior Additional Advocate General appearing for the State, has vehemently urged that once a post or place is declared to be a Police Station within the meaning of Clause (o) Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, then its jurisdiction cannot be held as limited into any geographical area or the nature of offence alleged to have been committed by the accused persons. 9. In contradiction to this contention of the State's counsel, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused being not falling under Sub-section (a) Clause (II) of the Annexure 'A' to the notification, the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station constituted under the aforesaid notification, had no jurisdiction to either register the police cases in question or to go ahead with investigation thereof. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, Police Station, Crime Branch is competent to register a case and switch on to investigation only in those cases in which the nature of accusations against the accused are covered by Clause (I) of Sub-clause (a) falling under the offences specified in Column 2 only. 10. In the aforesaid background, we now advert to the controversy raised at the bar. Just on a plain reading of the notification without any further aid or argument, we are of the view, that if one has to accept the construction sought to be put in the notification as suggested by Mr. 10. In the aforesaid background, we now advert to the controversy raised at the bar. Just on a plain reading of the notification without any further aid or argument, we are of the view, that if one has to accept the construction sought to be put in the notification as suggested by Mr. B.S. Manhas, learned senior Additional Advocate General, representing the State, it needs a closer scrutiny of the scheme contained in Ranbir Penal Code and, would require much tailoring of the notification. Column 2'of Sub-clause (a) of Annexure 'A' of the aforesaid notification has to be given a combined reading so as to contort its real meaning. Column I enumerates the specified acts of omission and commission and Column 2 specifically mentions the sections of the Ranbir Penal Code under which acts indicating in Clause (I) are covered. In other words, it is quite clear that the Officer-in-Charge of the said Police Station can register a case and proceed with the investigation only if the facts contained in the FIR disclose the offences related to the nature of accusations specified in Clause (I) of sub-clause (a). 11. In our view, it is clearly gatherable that in those offences which are disclosed in the FIR and pertaining to Counterfeit, Coining, Note, Forgery and Professional Poisoning specifically mentioned in Column 1 of Clause(a) and falling within the ambit of offence under the sections of Ranbir Penal Code indicating under Clause (II), cannot be taken cogniance by the Crime Branch, either for registering a case or to go ahead with the investigation. This answers the Questions No. I and II. 12. Section 440 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contemplates (no party has a right to be heard either personally or by a pleader before any Court when exercising its powers of revision). In case reported as Md. Abdul Haji v. State of Assam, (1985) 2 Crimes 722, a revision petition was disposed of on merits, in the absence of parties. A review petition was filed under Article 226 read with Section 22 of the Constitution of India, to recall that order. The High Court refused to entertain the petition in its writ jurisdiction. Therefore, it cannot be said that this section violates the principles of natural justice. So far as question of right of audience is concerned, nobody has a right to be heard in a revision. The High Court refused to entertain the petition in its writ jurisdiction. Therefore, it cannot be said that this section violates the principles of natural justice. So far as question of right of audience is concerned, nobody has a right to be heard in a revision. It is purely discretionary with the High Court whether it will hear any party in a revision or not. We have, therefore, no manner of doubt that the High Court has the powers to dispose of the revision petition on merits, even in the absence of parties/accused or when his counsel did not appear, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Section 440 Cr.P.C. It is well-settled that if a Bench of coordinate jurisdiction disagrees with another Bench of coordinate jurisdiction, it is appropriate that the matter be referred to larger Bench rather than to leave two conflicting judgments to operate, creating confusion, as is held by the Supreme Court in Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sadho v. Jagdish, (2001) 2 SCC 247 . This answers the third question. 13. Thus, looking to the facts and circumstances of the cases, the nature of accusation and gravamen of the offences said to have been committed by the accused, we are of the view that the FIR registered in both the cases, investigation conducted and challan presented before the Trial Court shall be deemed to be under the orders of the Court. It is further directed that the Trial Court, shall re-admit the challan to its original number and proceed to decide it in accordance with law, within a reasonable time. The direction given in this case, shall not, however, be taken as a precedent in any other case. 14. The reference stands answered accordingly and disposed of as such.