ORDER : 1. This revision is for impugning the order dated 3-5-2006 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri Special Judge appointed under the Madhya Pradesh Dacoity and Vyapaharan Prabhavit Kshetra Act, 1981 (MPDVPK Act in short) in Criminal Case No. 547/2005, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the complaint dated 3-12-2005 filed on behalf of the petitioners against the respondents on the ground that no specified offence is made out. 2. On perusal of the complaint, it appears that on 22-10-2005 at about 10:00 AM all the respondents came armed with deadly weapons including guns, farsa, luhangi, gadasi etc. at the residence of the petitioners and looted about Rs. 60,000/- along with some ornaments. Petitioners were also beaten by the respondents during the commission of the loot and dacoity. Immediate report was tried to be lodged at police station Tendua, District Shivpuri, but the same was not registered. On 24-10-2005 a written report was submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Shivpuri, thereafter on 27-10-2005 and FIR Crime No. 92/2005 was registered for only the offence punishable under sections 147, 148, 323, 427, 452 and 506-B read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code. No offence with regard to loot and dacoity along with the offence punishable under section 11/13 of the MPDVPK, Act was registered. Thereafter, this complaint has been filed. In support of the complaint, all the three petitioners have given their statements. Their statements have been corroborated by witnesses Kesai (PW-4), Ajmer (PW-5) and Maharaj Singh (PW-6). Vide impugned order, the learned Judge has observed that the petitioners did not mention anything in the FIR with regard to the offence of loot or dacoity, hence, taking cognizance for these offences does not appear justified. Hence, on this basis the complaint has been dismissed on the ground that with regard to the rest of the offences, police has filed charge-sheet against the respondents. 3. During the course of arguments both the parties have agreed that the place of incident is a notified area under the Act. As per the aforementioned allegation in the complaint with regard to loot and dacoity, the offence punishable under section 397 of Indian Penal Code prima faciely appears to be made out, which is a specified offence as defined in sub-section (f) of section 2 of the MPDVPK, Act. Admittedly, the learned Judge was empowered to try this offence. As per the aforementioned allegation in the complaint with regard to loot and dacoity, the offence punishable under section 397 of Indian Penal Code prima faciely appears to be made out, which is a specified offence as defined in sub-section (f) of section 2 of the MPDVPK, Act. Admittedly, the learned Judge was empowered to try this offence. Once prima facie the specified offence under section 397 of Indian Penal Code is made out, the provisions of sections 11 and 13 of the MPDVPK, Act will also be applicable. On the basis of the allegations in the FIR, which have been challenged in the complaint itself, that the FIR has not been registered as per the allegation mentioned by the petitioners, basing an observation and dismissing the complaint appears erroneous. Thus, the revision deserves to be allowed. 4. Consequently, the revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. It is directed that the learned Judge will make further enquiry with regard to the allegations contained in the complaint and pass appropriate order in accordance with law keeping in view the observation of this Court.