K KRISHNA WARRIER Vs. T R VELUNNY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition two questions were raised:

(2.) On the second question, the answer would depend on whether, the complainant in preferring the complaint, was acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty; if he was, his examination upon the complaint could have been dispensed with under the proviso referred to above. It was not contended, that as a District Magistrate he had any such duty to discharge. The contention of the learned government pleader was, that having been appointed as Commissioner of Inquiry under the Act and having submitted his report to Government, he could be authorised by Government to prefer the complaint, and if so, it must be deemed, that he was acting in the discharge of his official duty. He relied on S.3 & 10 of the Act, the material parts of which are as follows:

(3.) Differing from the courts below, I hold that proviso (aa) to S.200, CrlPC. is not applicable. It therefore follows, that the procedure prescribed by S.200 without the proviso, should have been adopted by the learned Magistrate for taking cognizance of the offence on complaint, by examining the complainant. The Magistrate is directed to proceed accordingly. This revision petition is allowed to the above extent.