1. The facts of the case are as follows. The petitioner is a Sub-Inspector of Salt and Excise. On receipt of certain information he prosecuted the opposite party for selling liquor without a license. On trial the opposite party was acquitted. The Court held that the case was false and ordered the Sub-Inspector to pay Rs. 51 as compensation to the opposite party under Section 250. Against this order the petitioner has moved this Court and was granted a Rule on the ground that the case not having been instituted on complaint or information to a Police Officer or Magistrate as contemplated under Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code the order directing payment of compensation is ultra vires.
2. The argument put forward by the petitioner is this. The Excise Officer acted upon the information of an informer. He. then under Section 73 and Section 74 of the Excise Act investigated the matter and under Section 74(4) submitted a report to the Magistrate, that under Section 74(4) the report is a Police report and so he is in the same position as a Police Officer making a report to the Magistrate. Section 250 contemplates that it is the person who made the complaint to the Magistrate or the person giving information to the Police who is to be held liable unnder Section 250 and hence that in the case of an Excise Sub-Inspector it is the informer who is liable to pay the compensation. His contention really amounts to this. That in a case like this the Sub-Inspector is in the position of a Police Officer who makes a report to the Magistrate after investigating an information made to him by some person or other. The simple answer to this argument is that this report of the Sub-Inspector of Excise to the Magistrate is a Police report only for the purpose of Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 74(4) says it shall be deemed to be a Police report for the purposes of Section 190. The logical deduction from this is that for other purposes the report is not a Police report. It is quite clear that it falls within the definition of complaint in Section 4(h), Criminal Procedure Code, for it is obviously an allegation made to the Magistrate in writing with a view to his taking action under the Code, that some person known or unknown has committed an offence. It is, no doubt, added that this does not include the report of, a Police Officer. But the report of the Excise Sub-Inspector is only deemed to be a Police report for the purpose of Section 190, Criminal Procedure Code, and not for the purpose of Section 4(h). So far as Section 250, Criminal Procedure Code, is concerned Section 74(4) has no application, and the information given to an Excise Officer is not for the purpose of Section 250 information given to a Police Officer.
3. Even if the report to the Magistrate by the Excise Officer be not a complaint, it is information given to a Magistrate and the Excise Officer is the person on whose complaint or information the accusation was made.
4. The result is the Rule must be discharged.