Atma Charan, J.C.
1. The only question that arises for consideration in revision before the court is whe. ther the proceedings against the applicant in respect of an offence punishable under Section 188, Penal Code should be allowed to continue on the complaint as filed. The District Magistrate passed an order Under Section 114, Criminal P.C. The police submitted a report against the applicant and some others that they had contravened the order, and asked that action be taken against them in respect of the offence punishable Under Section 188, Penal code. The District Magistrate on receiving the report just countersigned it. The report in due coarse was presented before trial Court by the Police. The contention on behalf of the applicant before the Court is that there was no complaint of the District Magistrate within the meaning of 8, 195, Criminal P.C. and that, as such, the trial Court could not have taken cognizance of the case.
2. The complaint is before the Court, and in no way goes to show that it had been filed by the District Magistrate, It is, in fact, a complaint; by the Police, which has just been countersigned by the District Judge (Magistrate?). The countersignature only goes to show that the District Magistrate had agreed with what had been put down in the report by the Police. The mere countersigning of the report of the Police by the District Magistrate would in no way change the nature thereof and would not convert it into a complaint by the District Magistrate within the meaning of 8, 4 (h), Criminal P.C.
3. The counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to various rulings on the point. The most relevant ruling appears to me to be that reported in Bahu v. Emperor 41 Cr. L. R. B28 : A.I.R. (27) 1940 oudh 241. The counsel for the prosecution, on the other hand, relied on Barhat v. Emperor Cr.L.J. 165 : A.I.R. (80) 1943 ALL. 6. The facts as narrated in Barkat v. Emperor, 44 Cr.L J, 166 : (A.I.R, (30) 1943 ALL. 6) in no way correspond with the facts of the present case. It appears that in that case the person, who could have made a complaint, had lodged a report for action to be taken against the accused before the Police. The police challaned the case, and that person appeared as a witness before the trial Court. It was accordingly held in that case that at the time when the Magistrate convicted the accused he had before him the written report of that person made to the Police and the evidence of that person who had been called as a witness, that that person intended that the accused should be punished that the prosecution was not really at the instance of some other person, that the moat that can be said was that the complaint was irregular within the meaning of Section 537, Criminal P.C., and that the conviction was not liable to be set aside as no substantial injustice had been done. In the present case, on the other hand, the District Magistrate had lodged no such report before the Police.
4. It accordingly appears to me that the trial Court is proceeding with the complaint as filed against the provisions as laid down Under Section 195, Criminal P.C. The proceedings before the trial Court, in the circumstances, cannot be allowed to stand, and must be quashed in entirety.
5. The application in revision accordingly is allowed, the proceedings before the trial Court are quashed in entirety and all the accused are acquitted.