NADEEM MAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed questioning the correctness of the order of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Criminal Revision Case No. 56/1976.

(2.) On the intervening night of 9th and 10th January, 1974, two lorries carrying bags of rice into Karnatak State from the State of Andhra Pradesh were intercepted by the Vigilance Cell Officers at ChinchoJi Road within the belt area. Cases were registered for contravention of clause 3 of the Southern States (Regulation of Export of Rice) Order 1964. The officer seized the rice and submitted a report to the District Revenue Officer, Hyderabad under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. The District Revenue Officer, Hyderabad issued a show cause notice to the driver of the lorry, Nadimiyan, the 1st petitioner herein and others. The 1st petitioner filed affidavits of petitioners 2 to 6 herein before the District Revenue Officer. In these affidavits, petitioners 2 to 6 stated that the rice belonged to them and they were transporting the rice within the Karnataka State. It is the case of the prosecution that the affidavits of petitioners 2 to 6 are false. Therefore, the Vigilance Inspector filed Criminal Case No. 501/1975 against the petitioners 1 to 6 herein alleging that they had committed offences under Section 207 and Section 465 read with Section 471 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case against the petitioners only under Section 207 I.P.C. Thereupon the petitioners filed a petition before the learned Magistrate contending that since the complaint was not filed by the District Revenue Officer, he was not entitled to take cognizance of the offence in view of the provisions of Section 195 Cr. P.C. The learned Magistrate held that the District Revenue Officer is a court and, therefore, the complaint by the Vigilance Inspector could not be entertained,

(3.) Aggrieved by that order, the State preferred a revision before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The learned Judge held that District Revenue Officer was not a court and, therefore, the learned Magistrate could take cognizance of the complaint filed by the Vigilance Inspector.