HAR NARAIN SINGH Vs. NAWAB CHAND LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. R.N. Pandey, Senior Inspector of Local Bodies, inspected the Buxar Municipal Office. On the 19th November 1955, he prepared a report in which he stated that several cases of suspected misappropriation and embezzlement against Nawab Chand Lai had come to his notice. He also referred to the Vice-Chairman's inspection note in which several other cases of misappropriation by Nawab Chand Lal were mentioned. He thought that the matter should be inquired into by the police and he accordingly recommended that that should be done. He sent a copy of this report to the sub-inspector of police at Buxar, to the District Magistrate of Shahabad at Arrah and to the Superintendent of Police of Shahabad at Arrah. Mr. Chatterji, who has appeared before us on behalf of the petitioner, has stated that a copy of this report was sent to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate also. After completing investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet. Thereupon, two tax-daro-gas, namely, Nawab Chand Lal and All Akbar were put upon their trial for offences under Section 409 of the Penal Code. As these misappropriations were alleged to have been committed in the course of several years, five different cases were started against Nawab Chand Lal and two different cases were started against Ali Akbar. All the seven cases ended in acquittal. The Chirman of the Buxar Municipal Board has filed seven memoranda of appeal against those acquittals accompanied by two applications under Section 417 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of special leave to appeal against acquittal. The office has reported that the applications for special leave are not maintainable because the cases were not originally started upon complaints. In the first place, it seems to us that the petitioner should have filed seven applications for special leave against the order of acquittal in each of the seven cases. Each of these applications could be accompanied by a memorandum of appeal so that the appeal could be admitted in case special leave was granted.

(2.) In the second place, the question is whether the applications for special leave are maintainable. Mr. Chatterji has argued that the report forwarded by Mr. R.N. Pandey to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate should be held to be a complaint within the meaning of Section 4 (h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure because allegations relating to the commission of an offence were made in that, report with a view to the Magistrate taking action under the Code. In our opinion, the argument is entirely without substance. Section 4 (h) reads as follows:

(3.) There is also another ground on which the applications must fail. It is only the complainant who can file an application for special leave under Section 417 (3) and, quite clearly, the Chairman of the Municipal Board was not the complainant in these cases. Mr. Chatterji has attempted to argue that Mr. Pandey forwarded the report as a representative of the Municipality and, therefore, the Buxar Municipality is the real complainant in the cases. It seems to us that there is no merit at all in this argument. Mr. Pandey was neither an employee nor a representative of the Municipal Board. He inspected the Municipal Board. He inspected the Municipal Office in discharge of his functions as Inspector of Local Bodies. He held his appointment as an officer of the State Government. Even if his report be treated as a complaint, he must be held to be the complainant in his capacity as Inspector of Local Bodies. In our opinion, neither the Municipal Board nor its Chairman can be held to be the complainant. Both the two applications for special leave are, therefore, not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner and they are dismissed.