IMPORTANT POINT
A successor in office of a public servant falls within the ambit of expression "public servant concerned" and is in law eligible to file a complaint required u/s. 195, Cr. P.C. against wrong doers.

JUDGMENT

S. Ratnavel Pandian, J. - The short point involved for determination in this appeal is with regard to the interpretation of the expression the public servant concerned appearing in Section 195(1) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code). The brief facts of the case which led to this controversy are as follows:

2. It is the admitted case that on 11.4.1968 a proceeding was initiated before the Sub Divisional Magistrate of Gyanpur under Section 145 of the Code in respect of a dispute over Plot No. 338 situated in village Balapur Rohi and it ended in favour of Smt. Ram Piari on whose behalf one Doodnath represented the matter as her agent. By an Order dated 11.4.1968 one Ram Lakhan and his party, who were the respondents in the proceeding were restrained from interfering with the possession of Smt. Ram Piari. Ram Lakhan died without leaving any issue. There were six respondents besides Ram Lakhan of whom two were his brothers and the remaining his nephews. It appears that there was a civil litigation between the parties, but we are not concerned in the present appeal about that civil dispute. It is stated that the respondents with the full knowledge that an order under Section 145 had been promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered disobeyed that direction and disturbed the possession of Smt. Ram Piari. Doodnath, who represented Smt. Ram Piari in the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code before the S.D.M., filed a petition on 10.3.1972 complaining that the respondents had violated his order; thereupon the Sub Divisional Magistrate preferred the petition under Section 188. I.P.C. before the Court of Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Gyanpur (Varanasi) against the respondents which was registered as Criminal Case No. 94 of 1973. The Trial Court, both on the basis of the documentary and oral evidence, produced before it found the respondents guilty of the offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted them there under and sentenced each of them to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment which conviction was confirmed on appeal by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gyanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 21/1976 on its file.

3. The respondents on being dissatisfied by the Judgment of the Appellate Court preferred Criminal Revision No. 614/1977 before the High Court of Allahabad which, of, the reasons, assigned in the impugned judgment, allowed the Revision and set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the respondents mainly on the ground that the complaint in this case had been filed not by the public servant concerned, namely, the Magistrate who passed that order under Section 145 of the Code, but by a successor Magistrate and that any successor Magistrate cannot exercise jurisdiction under Section 195(1)(a) and that the complaint, therefore, is not maintainable in law.

4. Being aggrieved by the Order of the High Court the State of U.P. has filed this criminal appeal challenging the correctness of the impugned Judgment in interpreting the expression "the public servant concerned".

5. The relevant provisions of Section 195 1(a)(i) of the Code reads thus:

"No Court shall take cognizance -

(a) (i) of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or

(ii) ..............................

(iii)..............

except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate."

The object of this Section is to protect persons from being vexatiously prosecuted upon inadequate materials or insufficient grounds by person actuated by malice or ill will or frivolity of disposition at the instance of private individuals for the offences specified therein. The provisions of this Section, no doubt, are mandatory and the Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of any of the offences mentioned therein unless there is a complaint in