Judgment

HEGDE, J.: - The appellant was tried and convicted by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, 1st Court, Broach under Section 55 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs l00/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three weeks. In appeal that conviction was affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Broach. In his revision petition before the High Court of Gujarat, the principal contention taken by him was that the learned Magistrate was not competent to take cognizance of the case against him, as there was no complaint as required by Section 72 of the Act. The revision petition was admitted for hearing and notice issued to the respondent but when the matter came up for hearing before Raju, J., the learned Judge rejected the revision petition with these cryptic remarks:

"Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. I do not wish to exercise my revisional jurisdiction in this matter."

2. Thereafter this appeal we; brought after obtaining a certificate from the High Court under Article 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. H. K. Puri challenged the conviction of the appellant on the sole ground that the appellant s triad was illegal as the case against the appellant was not proceeded on the basis of a complaint made by order of, or under authority from, the Director General or Post Master General as required by Section 72 of the Act.

4. The case against the appellant was taken cognizance of on the basis of a report by the police under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code after making an enquiry under Ch. XIV (Pt. V) of that Code. It is true that the investigation of the case was launched on the basis of the information given by the postal authorities. We shall even assume that the investigation in question was made after obtaining the sanction of the concerned Post Master General as contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent.

5. Section 55 of the Act reads thus:

"Whoever, being an officer of the Post Office entrusted with the preparing or keeping of any document, fraudulently prepares the document incorrectly, or alters or secretes or destroys the document, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, and shall also be punishable with fine".

6. In brief the accusation against the appellant is that he fraudulently prepared certain documents in the post office where he was serving as a delivery clerk.

7. Section 72 of the Act prescribes:

"No Court shall take cognizance d an offence punishable under any of the provisions of Sections 51, 53, 54, Clauses (a) and (b), 55, 56 58, 59, 61, 64, 65, 66 and 67 of this Act, unless upon complaint made by order of, or under authority from, the Director General or a Post Master General".

8. The question for consideration is whether there is such a "complaint" in this case? The expression "complaint" is not defined in the Act but the "complaint" contemplated under Section 55 is one that initiates a prosecution on the basis of which the accused if found guilty is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and also with a fine. That being so the expression "complaint" in Section 72 cannot be equated to mere information or accusation. The context in which that expression is used in Section 72 indicates that it is a formal document indicting an officer of the postal department for a criminal offence. The purpose behind Section 72 is that officials of the postal department should not be harassed with frivolous prosecutions and that before any of the prosecutions contemplated by Section 72 is launched, the authorities mentioned in that Section should have examined the appropriateness of launching a prosecution and either file a complaint themselves or authorise the filing of such a complaint. Such a requirement will not be satisfied if the concerned authorities merely