C.Y. Somayajulu, J.
1. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 716 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad under Section 4 of the A.P. Prevention of Disfigurement of Open Place and Prohibition of Obscene and Objectionable Posters and Advertisements Act, 1997 (for short 'the Act'). On a report given by the Sub Inspector of Police, West Zone Task Force on 19-03-2003, along with his superior officers of West Zone Task Force team was patrolling in the limits of Golconda Police Station at about 7.35 p.m., and that, when he reached near Tolichowki, he noticed a white colour banner of Gazali Public School, Nizam Colony, Tolichowki, Hyderabad hanged between two electric poles in front of Azeem Complex, Tolichowki. Then he secured the presence of two mediators and drafted observation cum seizure panchanama and seized the banner, and that during the course of enquiry, it is revealed that the management of Gazali Public School are responsible for the disfigurement of public place by hanging the said banner.
2. A case in Cr. No. 83 of 2003 was registered by the Golconda Police Station, and after investigation, the Inspector of Police, Golconda Police Station filed a charge sheet against the petitioner for an offence under Section 4 of the Act, which was taken cognizance of, and registered as C.C. No. 716 of 2003 by the IX Metropolitan Magistrate.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, in this case, since the F.I.R is registered on the basis of a report given by the Sub Inspector of Police, he filed the charge sheet and proceedings. According to Section 2 (d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a complaint means:
'Complaint means any 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 does not include a police report.
4. The explanation to Section 2(d) of Cr.PC. reads that a report by a Police Officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint. The report that is filed by the Inspector of Police would be a charge sheet, but not a complaint, and since the complaint in this case is given by the Sub Inspector of Police, proceedings are liable to be quashed.
5. It is important to note that the Act nowhere lays down as to who can give a report to the Police about the violation of the provisions of the Act. In this case, the Sub Inspector of Police, after noticing the violation of the provisions of the Act, made a report to the Golconda Police Station, which has registered the crime and which shall investigate into it. The contention that the charge sheet is not the same thing as complaint, in my considered opinion has no force at all. The Police cannot take cognizance of and investigate into a non-cognizable offence without the authority by a Magistrate. Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. says that, if the allegation is made orally or in writing to the Magistrate with a view to his taking action under the Code, it is a complaint and the report of the Police Officer in a case, which discloses after investigation of an offence, also would be deemed to be a complaint.
6. In fact, Charge Sheet is not defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure. As per Section 173 of the Cr.P.C, after investigation is completed, the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a Police Report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government, stating-
a) The names of the parties;
b) The nature of the information
c) Names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case;
7. So, the proceedings filed by the Inspector of Police does amount to a complaint, and hence, in view of the notification relied upon by the learned Public Prosecutor dated 18-03-2003, bearing No. L&O;/M/6/1104/2003 of the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued by the Commissioner of Police, it cannot be said that the proceedings are contrary to Section 16 of the Act that reads as follows:
'In exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 16 of 'A.P. Prevention of Disfigurement of Open places and Prohibition of obscene and objectionable Posters and Advertisements Act, 1997', I, M.V. Krishna Rao, IPS, Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, do hereby authorize, all the officers of and above the rank of Inspectors of Hyderabad City Police to take action and lay complaints in the appropriate Courts of the violations of the provisions of the above Act'.
8. Hence, I find no merits in this Criminal Petition and accordingly the petition is dismissed.