LAWS(PVC)-1930-8-42

SHEO PRATAP SINGH Vs. EMPEROR

Decided On August 04, 1930
SHEO PRATAP SINGH Appellant
V/S
EMPEROR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision filed on behalf of three persons, Sheo Pratap Singh, Gaja and Baram Din Singh, who have been convicted by a Magistrate under Section 353, 1. P.C., and sentenced to one day's simple imprisonment each and fines of Rs. 100, Rs. 20 and Rs. 25 respectively. An appeal was made to the learned Sessions Judge and dismissed by him, and the application in revision is directed against that appeal. In revision grounds 1 and 3 have been argued. Ground 1 alleges that the conviction of the applicants is wholly void and illegal inasmuch as the learned Magistrate omitted to inform the applicants under Section 191, Criminal P.C., of their right to have the case tried by another Court.

(2.) This argument assumes chat the Magistrate acted under Section 190(1)(c). The record shows that the Magistrate issued process on receiving a writing from the Tahsildar forwarding a writing from the amin, who stated that the accused had assaulted him in discharge of his duty. The question is whether the Magistrate acted on informations under Section 190(1)(c), or on a complaint under Section 190(1)(a). If he acted on a complaint, Section 191, Criminal P.C., does not apply. A complaint is defined in Section 4(h), Criminal P.C., which says: Complaint means the 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 an offence, but it does not include the report of a police officer.

(3.) "Information" is not defined, but has been held to cover statements of witnesses: Khudiram Mookerjee V/s. Empress [1897] 1 C.W.N. 105, communications by post: Karim Bakhsh V/s. Adil Khan [1899] A.W.N. 201, anonymous communications by post In the matter of Hari Narayan Biswas [1899] 3 C.W.N. 65, and may be received in another capacity than that of Magistrate: Sundaresam, In re [1920] 43 Mad. 709. The essential difference between a complaint and information is that a Magistrate acts on a complaint because the complainant has asked him to act, but a Magistrate acts on information on his own initiative. In the case of a complaint the Magistrate is asked to prosecute the persons named as accused, and he has then to decide whether he will accede to the request, or not. If he does not, then he must record his reasons under Section 202(1), Criminal P.C., and may either make an enquiry himself, or direct an enquiry or investigation, or dismiss the complaint under Section 203, Criminal P.C., after recording his reasons. But in the case of receiving information, the Magistrate is not asked by anyone to issue process, and if he does not choose to act on the information, he need not record any reasons or pass any order.