A through from time to time during the relevant period. Section 60 clause (b) as it originally stood provided that no Magistrate shall take cognizance . of an offence punishable under auy Section of the Act other then Section 35 or 38 or 46 or 48 "except on hi~ own knowledge or suspicion or on the complaint or report of an Excise or Police Officer". But before the ch'!rge-sheet in the present case came to be filed by the Police, an amendment was made fa Section 60 clause B (b) by Mysore Ordinance No. 4 of 1970 which came into force on 7th August 1970. Section 18 of this amending ordinance omitted the words "or police" in clause (b) of Section 60. The result was that cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 34 could not be taken by a Magistrate "except on his own knowledge or suspicion or on the complaint or report of au excise officer". Section 60 (B) __ J_ was also added at the same time and by this new Section inter-alia c offence under Section 34 was made cognizable arid the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 with respect to cognizable offences were made applicable to such offence. It was on the basis of the amended clause (b) . Section 60 that the learned Judicial Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge held that cognizance of the offence under Section 34 charged against the respondent could not be taken, since the charge-sheet was filed by the police and not by an excise D officer. The learned comisel appearing on behalf of the .State contended before us that even on the language of the amended clanse (b) of. Section 60 without the words "or police", it was competent to the . Judicial Magistrate by reason of the enactment of Section 60(B) to take cognizance of the offence, but it is necessary for us to examine this contention since we find that before the Revision Application came to be heard by :the High Court, a further amendment was made E • in clause (b) of Section 60 by Mysore Act 1 of 1971 aud ,that restored the position which obtained prior to the amendment made by Mysore Ordinance No. 4 of 1979. Mysore Act No. 1 of 1971 was deemed to have come into force on 7th August 1970 and Soction 23 of this Act provided inler-alia that the amendment to Section 60 made by Mysore Ordinance No. 4 of 1971 shall be deemed never ta have F been made and the provisions of Section 60 as they stood prior td· the said amendment shall be deemed to continue to be in force. The 1 result of the enactment of this provision by Mysore Act 1 of 1971'.. _. wa·s that the amendment made in Section 60 clause (b) by deleting :' the words "or police" by Mysore Ordinance 4 of 1970, was obliterated and wiped out with retrospective effect so that in the eye of the law ~ it was never made at all. It is now settled law that when a legal~· G fiction is enacted by the Legislatme, the Court should not allow its-~ ··" imagination to boggle but must carry the legal fiction to its logical extent and give full effect in it. We must, therefore, proceed on the basis that the words "or police" were always there in clause (b) of Section 60, even at the time when the learned Judicial Magistrate made hi~ order dated 3rd October, 1970 refusing to take cognizance of the offence and returning the charge-sheet to the police. If these H words were in clause (b) of Section 60 at that time, then obviously the learned Magistrate was in error in refusing to take cognizance of the complaint on the ground that the charge-sheet was not filed by an excise officer but by the police. That is the clear effect of the legal
