RAMCHANDRA SOTI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have had the advantage of perusing the judgment of my brother Brijlal Gupta. I agree with him that the date of signing the complaint was 1-6-1962 and that is the date on which the complaint was made. With great Inspect to him, I do not agree that it is optional for the Court not to record a finding of its being satisfied of the expediency even though it is satisfied about the expediency, but I agree that the non-recording of the satisfaction does not render the making of the complaint illegal. Signing the complaint amounts to making it; there is really one act caliecl differently. Sending the complaint to the Court concerned for trial is a different act and is of ministerial nature, for the reasons stated by me in my judgment in Mohd. Illayas v. State of U. P., 1954 All U 241 : (AIR 1954 All 225), an appeal lies not from the finding about the expediency but from the making of the complaint, i.e. from the signing of the complaint. I further agree with my learned brother that the making of a complaint is an order within the meaning of Section 419, Cr, P. C., which requires an appeal to be accompanied by a copy of the order.

(2.) I have already given my reasons in detail for the view that limitation for an appeal in a case governed by Section 476, Cr. P. C., commences on the date on which the complaint is signed or made, and I have nothing to add to them or to subtract from them.

(3.) I agree with the order proposed by my learned brother. Gupta, J.