M A RAHMAN SAJJID Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Government of Andhra. Pradesh by a notification, G.O.Ms. No. 1285 dated 30th July, 1968, by virtue of powers conferred on it by section 196. Criminal Procedure Code authorised the Commissioner of Police Hyderabad and Secunderabad to file complaints in respect of various offences including the offence under section 505, Indian Penal Code. The Commisioner of Police by virtue of the powers invested in him authorised Sri R.S. Karan, Inspector of Police to lay a complaint against the petitioners herein and accordingly R. S. Karan laid a complaint in the Court of 2nd City Magistrate, Hyderabad. It was taken on file and summons were issued to the petitioners. When they appeared a preliminary objection was raised about the maintainability of the complaint. It was submitted to the trial Court that Sri Karan submitted that report in his capacity as a Police Officer and as such the report cannot be treated as a complaint as defined in section 4 (1) (h) of the Criminal Procedure Code. This objection was overruled against which a revision petition was filed before the Chief City Magistrate, Hyderabad, who also agreed with the opinion of the trial Court and dismissed the petition, against which, this revision petition has been filed.

(2.) It is contended by Mr. Mohammed Rasheed Ahmed appearing for the petitioners that Sri Karan was appointed in his capacity as a Police Officer and not a complainant, and therefore, the complaint as such is not maintainable. He contends that "complaint" as defined in section 4 (1) (h) Criminal Procedure Code does not include the report of a Police Officer and section 196 Criminal Procedure Code which is in the following words, '' No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Chapter VI or IX-A of the Indian Penal Code........or section 505 of the same Code, unless upon complaint made by order of, or under authority from, the State Government or some officer empowered bv the State Government in this behalf I speaks of "complaint" which should exclude a Police Officer as an Officer who should file a complaint. But I do not see any inconsistency between the word "complaint" used in section 196, Criminal Procedure Code, and the definition of "complaint" given in section 4(1) (b). Under section 196, Criminal Procedure Code, the State Government has been invested with the power, to authorise any of its officers to file a complaint and if under the sanction of the State Government any of its officers including a Police Officer files a complaint, it will not lose its characteristic of being a complaint. The State Government has a wide power to appoint any of its officers it chooses and if it happens to be a Police Officer and he files a complaint it cannot be treated as a report by a Police Officer. If any such meaning is given to the word 'complaint' there is likely to be a conflict between the definition given in section 4(1) (h) and the word used in section 196, Criminal Procedure Code and no interpretation can be given which is not in harmony with the scheme of the Act.

(3.) In these circumstances, I do not see any force in the contention of the learned Counsel and the Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Revision dismissed.