STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. ABDUL RASHID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of acquittal passed under Section 247, cr. P. C. A complaint was filed against Abdul Rashid accused in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bagum- ganj under the Motor Vehicles Act, by the station Officer, Ghairatganj. On March 31, 1961, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate acquitted the accused just because of non-appearance of the complainant, S. O. , ghairatganj. The only question in this appeal is whether Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies to a case where "a complaint" is filed by a police officer.

(2.) THE operation of Section 247, Cr. P. C. , is not attracted unless the case was instituted on a complaint. The word 'complaint' is, defined in Section 4 (i) (h) of the Code. That definition expressly excludes the report of a police officer. It is argued for the defence that the expression "report of a police officer" within the meaning of that definition connotes only that report which is submitted in a cognizable case, but when a police officer reports a non-cognizable case to the magistrate, it tantamounts to a 'complaint'. Our attention is invited to the provisions contained in Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That section deals with the modes in which a Magistrate may take cognizance of an offence. Initially Clause (b) ran thus : "upon a police report of such facts. . . . . . . . . . . . ' In 1923 this Clause was amended evidently, to replace the expression "police report'' which had been interpreted in a technical sense by a nontechnical expression "report in writing of such facts made by a police officer". There had been a conflict of opinions as to whether the expression "police report" was confined to cognizable cases or concerned non-cognizable offences also where the police had no authority to investigate under Chapter XIV of the Code. The framers of the law obviously amended Clause (b) so as to widen its scope. So that now a Magistrate can take cognizance of a case under Section 190 (b) on report of a police officer even in a non-cognizable case. If the intention of the legislature was not to exclude from the word "complaint" report of a police officer in a non-cognizable case for the purposes of Section 190, such a report fell within the purview of Clause (a) of Section 190, and no amendment of Clause (b)was necessary. Obviously enough the amendment was necessitated by the fact that the framers of the law did not call such a report as a "complaint". It is excluded from the ambit of the word "complaint" as defined in Section 4 (i) (h) of the Code. It seems to us clear that it was for that reason alone that the wording of Clause (b) was modified so as to cover every report of a police officer whether in a cognizable or in a non-cognizable case. It must be remembered that the definition of the word "complaint" was not altered when Clause (b) of Section 190 was amended. We see no warrant to read the words "but it does not include the report of a police officer" in a narrow and limited sense so as not to apply to the report of a police officer made in a non-cognizable case.

(3.) FOR these reasons, the only construction which is possible is that a case instituted on a report by police even in a non-cognizable case cannot be said to have been taken cognizance of on a "complaint'', The provisions contained in section 247, Cr. P. C. , are, therefore, inapplicable to such a case.