STATE Vs. KATHI UNAD RANNING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case the point for determination The whether the Court can take cognizance of as offence Under Section 188, IPC without a complaint in writing of the public officer concerned.

(2.) THE Plead Constable of the Jesar Thanm made a report to the Sub-Inspector complaining of obstruction by the respondents in the discharge of his official duty and hurt. After stating the facts in the report he had stated that lie was thereby "making complaint for proceeding against the respondents according to law. " The In-change Sub-Inspector, who received the report,. 'the permanent Sub-Inspector being out of station, investigated into the offence and a charge-sheet to the Magistrate was sent by the Sub-Inspector, to trtwm the case was made over on his return. The learned Magistrate held after a trial that he had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence in the absence of a proper complaint as required, by Section 195 (1), Criminal P. C. and acquitted the respondent.

(3.) THE learned Advocate-General contended that the word "complaint" appearing in Section 195 (1) should be construed broadly. He pointed out that in this case the complaining officer viz. , the Head Constable was examined on oath. The original complaint, which he had made to the Sub Inspector, was also exhibited in Court by hint when he was giving his evidence and under the circumstances it ought to have been held that the provisions of Section 195 (1), Criminal P. C. were substantially complied with and the respondents should not have been acquitted. He referred to 'state v. Nandlal Karunashanker' AIR 1951 Sae 8 (A), in which the view was expressed that the word "complaint" should not be understood in the strict feense of the term (i. e. , in terms of t5. 4 (1 (h), Criminal P. C, which defines "cqrnplainfc"> i and all that was necessary was that it must be clear that the public servant concerned had applied his mind to the facts of the case and thought it necessary to send the case to the polios for investigation for taking criminal proceedings. 'barkat v. Emperor' AIR 1943 All 6 (B), was relie on in that case.