PERIASAMI NADAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed for revising the order of the District Magistrate, Madurai, confirming the conviction of the petitioner under Section 182 I. P. C. and sentence of fine of Rs. 50 passed on him.

(2.) THE petitioner sent through post a com-plaint against one Ramakrishnan P. W. 1, regarding the theft of his cycle to the Additional Sub-Inspector, Tirupparankundram. The complaint Ex. P. 5 was received on 17-7-1961, by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Tbimparankund-ram. He registered the case and transferred it to the Detective Sub-Inspector, P. W. 11, for investigation. P. W. 11 took up investigation and on enquiry found that the case was false and served a referred charge-sheet notice on the petitioner on 1st September 1961. He obtained a report from P. W. 1 Ramakrishnan against whom the petitioner gave the complaint of theft and registered a case under Section 211 I. P. C. against the petitioner. He applied to the Sub-Magistrate praying for permission to investigate-into the offence and obtained an order from him.

(3.) BOTH the courts have found that the petitioner gave information to the Sub-Inspector of police, Tirapparankundrarn, knowing that the information he was giving was false and intending that the public servant should cause annoyance to P. W. 1. The finding is a concurrent one and is not challenged by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Sri Venkatanarasimham, the learned Counsel for the petitioner raised two questions of law. Firstly, he contended that the complaint given by the petitioner was received by P. W. 10 and therefore under Section 195 Cr. P. C. it is only "the public servant concerned" that may prefer a complaint. According to the learned Counsel, the public servant concerned in this case is P. W. 10 and the complaint given by P. W. 11 is not in accordance with law. P. W. 11 stated in his evidence that, after completing the investigation, himself and P. W. 10 laid the charge-sheet. The charge-sheet is signed by both P. W. 10, the Additional Sub Inspector of Police, and P. W. 11, the Sub-Inspector of Police, who investigated the offence and therefore this point does not arise.