E PEDDA SUBBA REDDY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal Revision case is before us as it has been referred to a Division bench by Narashimam J., on the question "whether cognizance can be taken of an offence under Section 211, I. P. C. on a private complaint". The controversy relates to the interpretation of the words, "When such offence is alleged to have been committed in , or in relation to any proceeding in any court" occurring in Section 195(1)(b), Criminal Procedure Code. Before we proceed to deal with the question referred to the Bench, it may be necessary to set out the relevant facts leading to the filing of the revision case.

(2.) A complaint was filed by the second respondent against the revision petitioner in the Court of the Judicial second Class Magistrate, Jammalamadugu under Sections 193, 194 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code. The first petitioner gave a report to the village Munsif Ulappalli, alleging that the second respondent who was armed with a gun shot one Udala Pedda Subba Reddi on 17 -2 -64 at about 9 A.M. and some other assailants caused injuries, which resulted in the death of Pedda Subba Reddi, This led to the second respondent being taken into custody by the village Munsif and later by the investigating Officer who arrived subsequently on the scene for investigation. The second respondent gave a petition to the investigating Officer representing that he had nothing to do with the offence of murder, that he was beaten up and his gun also was seized and that he has been falsely implicated. The Investigating Officer then produced the Second respondent before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate. Jammalamadugu who remanded him to the Judicial custody in the sub -jail at Jammalamadugu for about a week.

(3.) SECTION 195(1)(b) , Cr. P. C. is in the following terms: