1. This is a revision by the accused in P. R. C. No. 6 of 1960 to revise the order of the learned District Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli, overruling the preliminary objection that the complaint preferred against him by Sri Padmanabhan, Personal Assistant to the Collector of Tiruchirapalli on the orders of the Collector in pursuance of the enquiry held by him under P. S. O. 157 and G. O. 2854 Home dated 12-10-1955, is illegal and cannot be sustained. In my opinion, the order of the learned District Magistrate is correct and I shall proceed to give my reasons for the same.
2. Section 190, CrIPC mentions three modes in which cognisance of offence may be made by a J magistrate and the first mode mentioned in it is by receiving a complaint of facts which constitute the offence. The complaint in this case would clearly come under Clause (a) of Section 190(l), cri. P.C. It is a well known principle of criminal law that anyone can set the criminal law in motion except when there are specific provisions such as Sees. 195 to 199, CrIPC restricting the making of com plaints except by particular persons. The learned advocate for the petitioner contended that a public servant could give a complaint Under Section 190U)(a). CrIPC only in respect of offences falling Under Section 195(1) CrIPC I do not find any such restriction in Section 190(l)(a) CrIPC It is true that in the case of a private complaint, the complainant, should be examined Under Section 200 CrIPC But so far as a complaint in writing by a public servant is concerned, it is clear from proviso (a) of Section 200, CrIPC that such examination is not necessary in cases where the public servant has. acted or purported to act in discharge of his official duties. In other cases the sworn statement of the public servant should be taken Under Section 200, CrIPC It is not possible to introduce into this proviso a further condition under the guise of interpretation that a public servant would be deemed to act as a public servant in the discharge of his duties only when he prefers a complaint in respect of the offences mentioned in Section 195(1) CrIPC I do not find any such qualification in that proviso.
The only question to be considered is whether the complaint given by the public servant in this. case, namely, the Personal Assistant to the Collector, was given by him in the discharge of his official duties. The complaint was given by the Personal Assistant on the orders of the Collector in pursuance of the enquiry held Under Section 157, P. S. O. corresponding to present P. S. P. 145. The learned Advocate for the petitioner argued that the Personal Assistant to the Collector should be deemed to have acted or purported to have acted in the discharge of his official duties only if he carried out any of the duties imposed on him by virtue of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and not otherwise. Thus he would restrict the legality and scope of 157 P. S. O. to cases of death which could be enquired into Under Section 176, CrIPC and not to cases of grievous hurt or torture of persons in police custody. This proposition is not supported by any authority and it would be straining the language of the proviso to Section 200, CrIPC to restrict the clause referring to the complaint of a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of the official duties to cases of unnatural deaths alone. There can be no doubt that the complaint was given by a public servant in this case in the discharge of his official duties. If the petitioner had voluntarily obstructed the Personal Assistant to the Collector during the enquiry under P. S. O. 157 it could hardly be contended that he would not be committing an offence Under Section 186. IPC which applies to voluntary obstruction of a public servant in the discharge of his public duties.
3. The enquiry in this case has not yet started In Rajangam v. State of Madras : AIR1959Mad294 , Somasundaram, J. has observed.
Apart from all these considerations I do not see how a complaint which is now before the court can be quashed unless there is a bar under any of the 'Act'. As mentioned earlier there is no dispute that the provisions of Sections 195 to 199, Crl. P. C. to the the complainant is 'an inspector' within the meaning of court taking cognisance of it. There is no such bar.
The complaint in this case has been duly taken .cognizance Under Section 190(1), Crl. P. C. and should be proceeded with under the provisions of the Code. The order of the learned District Magistrate is correct and there is no ground to interfere in revision. This revision petition is dismissed.