Siadat Ali Khan, J.
1. This is Revision Petition No. 287/ 1955 filed against the Judgment of the Munsiff Magistrate's Court, - Nirmal, dated 22-2-1955. I have heard the arguments of the learned Advocates of the parties.
2. The facts alleged are that on 23-4-1954, a buffalo of the Revision Petitioner, Buehanna, was, according to him. stolen and slaughtered by Dometi Venkiah. Therefore, he lodged a complaint with the Police on the 24th. The Police issued an F.I.R, and investigated the complaint. It came to the conclusion that the complaint was a false one, issued a final report on 16-8-1954, and fled a complaint on 22-9-54 under Section 182, I.P.C.
After this, revision petitioner also lodged a complaint to the Magistrate on 20-10-54 alleging that his allegation of theft was correct and it should be inquired into. The learned Magistrate tried both the cases together, convicted the Revision Petitioner under Section 182 and fined him Rs. 30/-holding that the complaint filed by the Revision Petitioner was thus automatically dismissed.
3. The learned Advocate for the Revision Petitioner argued that as the complaint of the Revision Petitioner was to the Court, it should have been proceeded with, and if found untrue, the Magistrate himself should have lodged a complaint before another Magistrate in accordance with the provision of Section 195 and before that he could not have inquired into the complaint by the Police under Section 182, I.P.C. He also argued that the. learned Magistrate tried both the complaints together, but tills was incorrect, and not warranted by law.
4. I carefully considered the above contention. It should be noted that the complaint by the Police was filed before the complaint by the Revision Petitioner. There is a clear authority for the proposition that a complaint under Section 182 can be proceeded with, even where a complaint is filed y the accused. In this connection - 'Notaram v. Emperor' AIR 1943 Lah 31 (A), may be perused. Thus, it appears to me that there was no bar to the Magistrate coming to a conclusion on the complaint filed by the Police.
The question whether the Magistrate should have also filed a complaint under Section 211 is a distinct question and if so persuaded he could have lodged a complaint himself Under Section 195, Cr. P.C. before another Magistrate for proceeding against the Revision Petitioner under Section 211, I.P.C. If the Magistrate did not choose to do that, there appears to be no reason why his convicting and sentencing the revision petitioner under Section 182 should be deemed to be incorrect.
Sanction of the Magistrate is required for a complaint under Section 211, and not for one under Section 182, I.P.C. I, therefore, see no force in this revision petition. Before dismissing it I may quote from the Lahore case referred to above, below:
The real question in the present case is, whether when the Police in conformity with the provisions of Section 195, Cr. P.C. filed a complaint under Section 182, Penal Code, and the offence as far as Section 182, I.P.C. is concerned, is complete, the jurisdiction of the trying Magistrate is taken away because the accused subsequent to his report to the Police, choose to file a complaint before a Magistrate on the same facts which was also found to be false.
The contention appears to be that because the institution of criminal proceedings under Section 211, I.P.C. resulting from a false complaint to a Magistrate requires Magisterial sanction under Section 195, Cr. P.C. the proceedings in the Section 182 case (the offence under this Section being already complete) should be quashed as without jurisdiction, in the absence of the magisterial sanction which is necessary for the institution of a complaint under Section 211, Penal Code.
On principle we can find no basis for any such contention. It may be noted that neither the Full Bench ruling - 'Muthra v. Roora' 16 Pun Re 1870 Cr (FB) (B), nor - 'Emperor v. Apaya Tatoba Munde' 15 Bom LR 574 (C); nor - 'Ghulam Rasul v. Emperor' AIR 1936 Lah 238 (D), deal specifically with the question now at issue. In none of these cases had a false report to the Police been followed by a subsequent false complaint to a Magistrate. In the Full Bench case, 16 Pun Re 1870 Cr (B), which dealt with a false report to the Police, the man who made the report was convicted under Section 182, Penal Code, The Full Bench declined to interfere.
At the same time the learned Judges expressed the view that the offence more properly fell within the scope of Section 211, Penal Code. They held, however, that the mere fact that the Magistrate had charged and convicted under a wrong Section did not affect the merits of the case, and did not warrant interference in revision,
In the revision before me also the Revision Petitioner has been convicted under Section 182. and on the authority of the Full Bench case 16 Pun Re 1870 Cr (B), declined to interfere, The Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed.