Shiv Dayal, J.
1. This revision arises out of the order passed by the Magistrate First Glass, Raipur, refusing to proceed further with the trial on the ground that the complaint had not been filed by a competent person,
2. A complaint was filed by P. K. Dave, whose designation is said to be Regional Transport Inspector (Enforce-ment), on the allegation that when he checked Bus MPR 799 there was no driving license with the driver so that offence under Section 86 (3), read with Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act was committed. A preliminary objection was raised by the, accused that the complaint was not competent inasmuch as P. K. Dave had no authority to file the complaint. This objection found favour with the trial Magistrate and he held that -
'When the R.T.I. (Enforcement) had no authority to file a complaint or challan, what he did would be illegal and deserves no further notice. Thus, this Court is unable to take any further action on the challan under reference. It is without authority and, therefore, cannot be proceeded with further. It will be filed according-ly.'
This order of the Magistrate is manifestly erroneous. It is provided in Section 190 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure that a Magistrate may take cognizance of an offence (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence, (b) upon a report in writing of such facts made by any Police Officer .....Thus, it is transparent that a complaint can be filed by any person regarding any offence, unless there is a bar which requires that a complaint of a certain offence can be filed only by a certain specified person or authority. No provision has been pointed cut to me in the Motor Vehicles Act or in any other law, which requires that a complaint for an offence under Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act can be filed by a specified person or authority. That being so, the order of the Magistrate that he could not proceed with the trial because the Regional Transport inspector was not specially authorised to make that complaint, is in utter disregard of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure mentioned above. It is immaterial whether the complainant was or was not a Police Officer. If he was, his complaint would be called a report within the meaning of Clause (b) of Section 190 (1) otherwise, it will be a complaint under Clause (a).
3. Having reached that conclusion the order of the learned Magistrate must be set aside. Ordinarily therefore, I would have sent bach this case to the learned Magistrate for further trial. But, since, both sides have argued before me the question whether the complaint hasany substance or not, I would decide this point right now.
4. In order to constitute an oifence under Section 86 (3) it will have first of all to be seen whether there was contravention of Sub-section (1). That sub-section re-quires that the demand to produce driving licence must be made by 'any Police Officer in uniform'. That is the sine qua non. To put it differently, it is no contra-vention of Sub-section (3) read with Sub-section (1) if a driver does not produce his driving license when it Is demanded by any person other than a police officer. There is no material to show that the complainant was 'a Police Officer'. No notification under Section 133 (a) is en record, nor is there anything else to show that the complainant is a Police Officer. The only notifications which are relied on on behalf of the State are thoss published in the M. P. Gazstte of August 26, 1930 at page 1378. Not one of those notifications applies to Sub-section (1) or (3) of Section 83; nor does it notify generally that the Regional Transport Inspector will be a Police Officer. Shri Dube appearing for the Stale concedes that there is no other notification.
5. For these reasons the complaint i.s incompetent because the complainant Is not shown to be a Police Officer, and consequently there could not be any contravention of Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (3) of Section 86.
6. In the result the revision is dismissed.