1. The first point is that the Public Prosecutor having withdrawn from the case, the accused must be acquitted. It does not appear that there was, formal withdrawal from the prosecution-under Section 494. The Prosecution Inspector simply dropped out and let a vakil carry on the prosecution in what was practically a private complaint.
2. The second point is whether the Police on receiving information in a complaint forwarded under Section 202 can investigate under Section 156. The Police need no more than report; but if they choose to investigate, it is not illegal. '
3. If Emperor v. Haji Nur Mahomed I.L.R. (1928) B. 339 is to the contrary, I respectfully disagree. In In re Arula Kotiah (1911) 10 M.L.T. 120 : 12 Cri. L.J. 463 it was held that a Magistrate having taken cognizance of a complaint is bound, if he decides to delay process under Section 202, to call for a report and cannot act under Section 156 (3) ; but this ruling does not affect the powers of the Police. It would be a strange state of the law if a dangerous murderer was at large and the Police could not arrest him because some misguided person had already lodged a complaint so suspiciously false that the Magistrate had called for a report. King-Emperor v. Bhola Bhagat I.L.R. (1925) Pat. 379 is to the same effect.
4. The petition is dismissed.