JAMUNA PRASAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jamuna Prasad applicant was convicted under Sec. 186, I. P. Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50.00 in default simple imprisonment for a fortnight by a first class Magistrate, Lucknow. He went up in appeal, but the Sessions Judge, Lucknow, upheld the order of the Magistrate and dismissed his appeal. It was contended by the counsel for the applicant that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence committed by the applicant as there was no proper complaint required by Sec. 195 (1) (a) of the Cr. P. C. and the whole trial was vitiated because of this illegality, but this contention was rejected by the appellate court. A few decisions were cited by the counsel for the applicant before the appellate court which supported this contention, but the view expressed by a Single Judge of this Court in Barkat Vs. Emperor, A.I.R. 1943 Allahabad 6 was preferred by the appellate court and accepting that view it rejected the appeal.

(2.) The applicant then came up in revision before this Court and the revision came before one of us who found that there was overwhelming authority in support of the contention advanced by the applicant and there were also a few authorities against that contention. The revision was, therefore, referred to a Divisional Bench of this Court so that an authoritative decision may be given on the point involved. It is in these circumstances that this case has been placed before a Bench of this Court.

(3.) Before dealing with the point of law involved in the case it would be desirable to give briefly the fact of this case. The prosecution case is that Sri A. H. Chisthi, Sales Tax Officer, Lucknow, was inspecting the shop of Ahmad Hasan Wahid Hasan, Udaiganj, Cantonment Road, Lucknow, on the 19th of June, 1956, when the applicant case came there and interfered in the discharge of his official duties as a public servant and also misbehaved. Sri Chishti immediately afterwards lodged a report of this incident at the police station concerned. The police thereupon submitted a charge-sheet against the applicant under Sec. 186, I. P. Code. Sri Chishti appeared as a prosecution witness in this case and he proved the report which he had lodged.