STATE Vs. SAKHARAM ANNA VANJARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This reference made by the Sessions Judge, Akola, raises an interesting question under the Bombay Village Panchayats Act.

(2.) IT appears that though a charge -sheet was presented before a Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akola, on December 5, 1960, by the Station Officer, Barsi -Takli Police Station, through constable No. 980 Ramsahai, it was obviously a police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of an offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, alleged to have been committed by one Sakharam Vanjari of Takli. Copies of the documents under Section 173(4) of the Code were supplied to the accused. The case was ordered to be registered on that day by the Presiding Magistrate and the accused who was perhaps present was bound over for appearance on the next date, December 13, 1960. On that day, a contention appears to have been raised on behalf of the accused that the Judge Magistrate was required to return the complaint for presentation to the proper forum, namely, the Nyaya Panchayat, having jurisdiction to try the case. The learned Magistrate heard arguments from the Police Prosecutor as well as counsel for the accused and came to the conclusion that the offence complained of was triable under Section 75 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act before a Nyaya Panchayat as the value of the property was less than Rs. 20. Therefore, he ordered the charge -sheet and other documents accompanying the charge -sheet to be returned to the Police Station Officer, Barsi -Takli, for presentation to the Nyaya Panchayat having jurisdiction to try the offence. It was assumed perhaps that there was a Nyaya Panchayat having jurisdiction to try this offence alleged to have been committed by the accused. Against this order the State filed a revision application before the Sessions Judge, Akola, for making a reference to this Court quashing the order of the trying Magistrate and directing him to proceed with the case according to law. The revision application was allowed by the Sessions Judge and the Sessions Judge has made this reference with a recommendation that the order passed by the trying Magistrate returning the charge -sheet for presentation to the Nyaya Panchayat should be set aside and the Magistrate be directed to proceed with the case according to law.

(3.) THESE are some of the important provisions of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act dealing with the manner of taking cognisance of criminal cases by the Nyaya Panchayat to which reference is appropriately made in the considered order of reference made by the learned Sessions Judge. It is no doubt true that there is no definition of 'complaint' or 'complainant' in the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. The question is whether, therefore, the word 'complaint' appearing in Section 87 of the Act would include a police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 'Complaint' is defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure and it is well -known that the Code makes a well understood distinction between a complaint and a police report. A criminal case instituted on a complaint is distinguished from the criminal case instituted on a police report. They are dealt with by different procedures. That distinction applies both to the accused as well as persons who come before the Court for initiation of proceedings. In my opinion, the view of the learned Sessions Judge that the word 'complaint' in the Bombay Village Panchayats Act ought not to be held to include a police report is wel -founded. The scheme for trial of criminal cases before the Village Panchayat necessarily shows that the complaint must be in writing and by the person who is himself aggrieved or the person who can appear before the Nyaya Panchayat for prosecution of his complaint. It is not possible to hold that a public officer like Sub -Inspector who is empowered to initiate criminal proceedings by sending a police report would be required to attend before the Nyaya Panchayat from hearing to hearing or that the case can be decided in his absence if he were to be absent on a particular hearing. It is also not possible to hold that the police officer who makes a report regarding an offence for taking cognisance thereof by the Magistrate would have authority to compound the offence or that such offence will be capable of being compounded by the Nyaya Panchayat. The police officer will have no such authority. He is not a person aggrieved in the sense that he has suffered injury and yet that result will have to follow if the police officer making a report is to be deemed to be a person making a complaint under the Village Panchayats Act. In my opinion, therefore, on proper construction of the provision and the scheme of the Village Panchayats Act the word 'complaint' in Section 87 which enjoins on a Magistrate not to take cognisance of the offence instituted on a complaint of which cognisance can be taken by the Nyaya Panchayat must be restricted to a complaint in writing by the person aggrieved, that is, a complaint within the meaning of Section 4(h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It will be permissible to read the word 'complaint' in that sense as private complaint of the person who is aggrieved or who is authorised to make a complaint on behalf of the aggrieved person but the word complaint would not in my opinion include a police report or a charge sheet sent by a police officer to take cognisance of the offence. The procedure is entirely different and it will not be proper to include in 'complaint' in Section 87 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, a police report.