RAMALINGAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Pondicherry, dated 30.11.1999, confirming the judgment passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry in STR.No.578/93 dated 17.2.98, sentencing the petitioner herein to undergo imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment, for an offence under Section 182 IPC, the present revision has been preferred.

(2.) The brief facts of the prosecution case is that Ramalingam, the respondent herein lodged a First Information Report with the Inspector of Police PCR Cell on 15.12.1993 at about 5.00 p.m stating that one Sekar and Radhakrishnan abused him by using his caste name which attracted the provisions of the Protection of Civil Rights Act. The matter was investigated and found to be false. On coming to know that the complaint given by the said Ramalingam is false, the Inspector of Police, PCR Wing filed a petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry and sought for permission to register a case for an offence under Section 182 IPC, against the said Ramalingam. But the learned Magistrate dismissing the said application said that no such permission is needed. But however he has observed to the effect that he shall after obtaining permission from the Superintendent of Police make a complaint before the police officer having jurisdiction to investigate the offence committed within the limits of such police station. Accordingly, the Inspector sought permission from the Superintendent of Police, who apparently is said to have given permission and on the basis of which he filed a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Grand Bazaar police Station, Pondicherry, who investigated the matter and has filed the present charge sheet, which reads as follows: On 15-2-93 at about 17.00 hrs, the accused Ramalingam gave a First Information Report to the Inspector of Police, PCR Cell, Pondicherry complaining that one Sekar and Radhakrishnan abused him on the grounds of untouchability and requested the Police of Civil Rights Act knowing that it was false complaint intending thereby that the Inspector of Police, PCR Cell, Pondicherry would use his lawful power to the annoyance of the said Sekar and Radhakrishnan, thereby the accused Ramalingam appear to have committed an offence punishable under Section 182 IPC. Hence the charge. Sd/-(A.KANDANATHAN) Sub-Inspector of Police Grand Bazar Police Station Pondicherry. The accused contested the trial and as he was found guilty, was punished as mentioned above.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in this revision questions the maintainability of the very prosecution case itself, in view of Section 195 Cr.P.C. He also took me through the relevant portions of the Section, which reads as follows: 195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence (1) No Court shall take cognizance - (a) (i) of any offence punishable under Section 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code, or ..... 195(2) Where a complaint has been made by a public servant under clause (a) of sub-section (1) any authority to which he is administratively subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of such order to the Court; and upon its receipt by the court, no further proceedings shall be taken on the complaint: