UDIT NARAYAN SINGH Vs. RAMRUP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 417 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for special leave to appeal against an order of acquittal arises in the following circumstances : The petitioner applied before the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 69 of the Bihar Tenancy Act for division of crops standing in some bhaoli lands. The Sub-Divisional Officer appointed a mukhtear as pleader -- Commissioner to divide the crops. The Commissioner reported that the opposite party obstructed him in dividing the crops. The petitioner then filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, praying that he should file a complaint against the opposite party under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Sub-Divisional Officer, after satisfying himself, filed a complaint against the opposite party for an offence under Section 186 of the Penal Code. The opposite party were accordingly put upon their trial and the trial Court convicted them of that offence. On appeal, however, the learned Sessions Judge of Monghyr has acquitted the opposite party.

(2.) Quite clearly, the complaint in this case was filed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sub-section (3) of Section 417 runs as follows:

(3.) The stamp reporter has reported that this application for special leave to appeal cannot be entertained at the instance of the petitioner because he was not the complainant in the ease. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, Mr. Kaushal Kumar Sinha has argued that the petitioner was the real complainant in the case. He has drawn our attention to the definition of "complainant" in Section 4 (h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is as follows: