CHAMUKUTTAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises out of a complaint filed by the Principal Munsiff, Palghat under S.195 and 476 Cr. P. C. The revision petitioner is a Vakil's clerk at Palghat. Against him and another person, the learned Munsiff filed a complaint before the District Magistrate, Palghat, for an offence of fabrication of false evidence in connection with a petition I. A. 2842 of 1960. On receipt of the complaint, the learned District Magistrate found that the facts of the case really disclosed offences triable exclusively by the Sessions Court, and treating the case as a preliminary enquiry case, transferred the same to the Sub Magistrate, Palghat, The Sub Magistrate on finding that a prima facie case was made out committed the accused to stand their trial before the Court of Session, Palghat.

(2.) The case was tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Palghat who convicted the first accused for offences under S.467 and 471 I. P. C., and the petitioner for abetment of the above said offences. On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge of Trichur acquitted the first accused on the ground that the charge laid against the first accused under S.467 and 471 IPC., cannot be taken cognizance of for want of a proper complaint and his conviction and sentence were set aside. The conviction and sentence passed on the petitioner was confirmed. The petitioner has, therefore, come up in revision to this court.

(3.) The main point that was pressed before me by the learned counsel was that the petitioner, being not a party to the suit or the criminal proceedings, no complaint could have been lodged against him by the learned Munsiff and the trial was, therefore, without jurisdiction and the conviction cannot be maintained. Reliance was placed on certain decisions which have taken the view that a court cannot under S.195(1)(c) prefer a complaint against a person who is not a party.