NATABAR SAMAL Vs. BIDULATA DEI AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of acquittal passed by the Sub -divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Cuttack, in 2 C.C, No. 287 of 1969 acquitting the accused persons of allegations constituting on offence under Section 188, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) A proceeding under Section 144, Code of Criminal Procedure was at first initiated in the Court of the Sub -divisional Officer, Sadar, Cuttack, against the accused -Respondents on 23 -11 -1968. In that case a preliminary order under Section 144, Code of Criminal Procedure was issued by the Sub -divisional Officer, and as alleged it was served on the Respondents herein on 24 -11 -1968. On 25 -11 -1968 a petition was filed by the person designated as the Appellant in this appeal (hereinafter referred to only as 'the Appellant ') before the said Sub -divisional Officer alleging therein violation by the persons designated as the Respondents in this appeal of the said order under Section 144, Code of Criminal Procedure passed on 24 -11 -1968, and on that ground requesting the Sub -divisional Officer to start a proceeding under Section 188, Code of Criminal Procedure. On the said petition the Sub -divisional. Officer called for a report from the police, and the police reported that the order under Section 144, Code of Criminal Procedure issued by the Court was violated by the Respondents. Thereafter on 8 -9 -1969 the Sub -divisional Officer, Cuttack filed a complaint in the Court of the Sub -divisional Magistrate, sadar Cuttack. On that complaint cognizance of a case under Section 188, Indian Penal Code was taken and the Respondents were summoned to stand their trial in 2 L.C. No. 287 of 1969. In the trial of that case the Respondents were acquitted of the said allegation. Thereafter the Appellant moved the Sub -divisional Officer, Sadar, Cuttack, who filed the Complaint Case No. 2 C.C. 287 of 1969, to authorise the Appellant to move the proper Court for setting aside the order of acquittal passed in the aforesaid case. The learned Sub -divisional Officer, however, instead of authorising the Appellant as prayed for by him endorsed the matter to the Associate Public Prosecutor to examine the position and thereafter to put up the matter before him for further action and/or Orders. As it appears, the Sub -divisional Officer thereafter did not take any action in the matter, and so the Appellant on obtaining leave of this Court filed this appeal against the aforesaid order of acquittal passed in 2 C.C. No. 287 of 1969.

(3.) THE word "complainant" has not been defined anywhere in the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the Oxford Dictionary (Vol. II, page 722) one of the meanings of the word "complainant" is one who enters a legal complaint against another. In the Websters Dictionary (Vol. I at page 350) the meanings of the word "complainant" are 'one who makes a complaint; a complainer; a prosecutor '. The word "complaint" as defined in Section 4(ii), Code of Criminal Procedure means "any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code that some person whether known or unknown has committed on offence, but does not include a police report". From all this it is quite clear that the word "complainant" in the context of a criminal case in a Court of law would mean a person who files the complaint before a Magistrate, and no other person can come within the meaning of that word.