1. Without going into the question of whether this Court in revision can go into the questions of the bona fides of the accused's plea of guilty we prefer to base our order on the legal point taken by Mr. Rajagopalan for the accused, viz., that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had no jurisdiction to convict accused for an offence-under Section 182, I.P.C. as he had not a complaint under that section of the public servant concerned vide Section 195 1), Cr.P.C. We do not think that the difficulty of the absence of such a complaint is got over by arguing that an offence under Section 182, I.P.C. is contained in an offence under Section 211, I.P.C. and that therefore the Court taking cognisance of an offence under the latter section ipso facto takes cognisance of an offence under the former. The essence of an offence under Section 182 is not the falseness of the information, as it is the essence of an offence under Section 211 but the contempt of the lawful authority of the public servant and unless and until the public servant concerned chooses to move the matter, the Court has no authority to do so suo motu, by whatever process it reaches that result. We must therefore hold that the conviction of accused under Section 182, I.P.C. is bad and set it aside. The result in our opinion is that the proceedings from the time of alternation of the charge are without jurisdiction and that the Magistrate must start again from the original charge sheet under Section 211, I.P.C. if the police are still prepared to proceed with the prosecution of that charge. We order accordingly.