1. The Petitioner has been convicted Under Section 182 for making a false complaint against one Avani Munivenkatappa alleging illicit manufacture of toddy. The complaint, was made to the daffedar Malur on 8-10-52 and after Investigation a B report was filed. Sanction was obtained from the Superintendent of Police to prosecute the Petitioner for making a false complaint and a charge-sheet was filed in Courtfor the same. The prosecution examined sevenwitnesses and two were examined on behalf ofthe Petitioner. The learned Magistrate dis-believed the evidence in support of the defence,convicted the petitioner and sentenced him topay a fine of Rs. 30/-.
2. Sri Ranga Rao Kadom, learned counsel for petitioner, contended that the conviction is illegal on the ground that the condition necessary for the initiation of the proceedings has not been satisfied and that it is unwarranted since there is no finding that the Petitioner's complaint was false to his knowledge. The first ground la based on Section 195(1)(a), Criminal P. C., which reads as follows:
(a) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 of the Indian Penal Code, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned, or of some other public servant to whom he is subordinate;'
It is argued that charge sheet cannot be regarded as complaint in writing and without a complaint as defined in the Code, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the Petitioner. -- 'Emperor v. Babulal Munnilal', AIR 1936 Nag 86 (A); --'Maganbhai v. State of M. P.', AIR 1953 Nag 290 (B); -- 'Banshilal v. state', AIR 1954 Nag 30(C) and -- 'Santi Lal v. Emperor', AIR 1948 Clause 103 (D) cited by Sri Ranga Rao Kadom support the contention. The same view is taken by a learned Judge of this Court in 40 Mys H.C.R. 348 (E). The learned Advocate-General did not dispute that a complaint in writing was necessary in the case but stated that the F. I. R. concerning the petitioner's complaint may be treated as the complaint in writing against the Petitioner. He pointed out that the objection now put forward was not raised in the lower Court or in the revision petition. aS the complaint alleged to be false was made in this case to a police officer and the F. I. R. was sent with respect to it by an officer above him in rank, it would be sufficient for the purpose of the Section provided it can be deemed to be complaint. I do not think that the F. I. R. touching one complaint can serve as a complaint against the complainant and afford basis of a prosecution. The F. I. R. was open to further scrutiny by the court and in spite of what was stated therein there was possibility of the case ending in a conviction.
The learned Magistrate has not taken it as the complaint for the present case and the order sheet shows that proceedings started with a charge sheet and not on the basis of the F. I- R. The definition of complaint as given in the Code does not include the report of a Police Officer. It is clear from this and the cases referred to that a charge sheet cannot be held to be a complaint in writing prescribed by Section 195, Criminal P. C. The absence of the complaint is a vital defect not curable by the provisions of Section 537 of the Code. The charge-sheet in this case was not warranted having regard to the nature of the offence complained of and has to be considered as superfluous and not as furnishing a necessary requirement. The conviction and sentence are set aside ana the accused is acquitted. The fine, if paid, will be refunded.
3. Accused acquitted.