STATE Vs. M MEERA SAHIB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal preferred by the State and is directed against the order of the Stationary First Class Magistrate of Adoor in c. C. No. 64 of 1955 acquitting the accused under S. 247 of the Criminal procedure Code on the ground that the complainant did not appear on that day in spite of summons. What is urged on behalf of the State is that the proceedings in question were initiated not on the basis of a complaint as defined in s. 4 (1) (h) of the Criminal Procedure Code as it was on the basis of a police report and hence the acquittal under S. 247 of the Criminal Procedure Code was irregular. It is further pointed out that the absence of the Police Officer concerned was on sufficient grounds also.

(2.) THE main question to be considered is whether the complaint contemplated under S. 247 excludes a report of a Police Officer as in the present case. Here the offence with regard to which the report was submitted was one under S. 8 and 9 of the Motor Vehicles Act, XIV of 1950. On behalf of the appellant reliance was placed on State v. Velayudhan (1951 KLT 520) to show that S. 247 was not applicable to such cases. But in a later decision of this Court, namely Saramma Zacharia v. State (1952 KLT 487) when dealing with the question of the jurisdiction of a Magistrate to take cognisance of a non-cognisable offence on report by the Police under S. 186 of the Travancore Criminal Procedure Code (corresponding to S. 190 of the Indian code) it was observed as follows at page 488: "further, if a report to a Magistrate by the Police with respect to a non-cognisable offence could not be considered as a report within the meaning of S. 186 (1) (b) such report will constitute a complaint as that expression is defined in S. 4 (1) (d) (S. 4 (1) (h) of Act V of 1908 ). (See ILR 26 Bombay 150 (FB), AIR 1924 Lahore 258, AIR 1927 Bombay 440, AIR 1932 Bombay 610 and 17 TLJ 816 ). " So we are of opinion that the contention that the magistrate had no jurisdiction to act under S. 247 of the Code of Criminal procedure in the present case cannot stand.