The provisions of Section 195 Cr.PC cannot be evaded by resorting to devices and camouflages. The test whether there is evasion of the section or not is whether the facts disclose primarily and essentially an offence for which a complaint of the Court or of the public servant is required.

Basi Reddy, J.

[1] This is a petition by accused No. 1 to revise the order of 'the Stationary II Class Sub-Magistrate, Amalapuram, passed in C.C. No. 686' of 1956 on his file by which the learned Magistrate directed that the offence under Section 188 I. P, C, be dropped and the trial of the case with regard to the other offences ' alleged in the complaint, namely, offences punishable Under Sections 447, 506, 323 and 379, IPC be proceeded with.

[2] The facts giving rise to this revision petition are set out in the complaint filed by the respondent and are as follows;

[3] The respondent and the petitioner own adjoining fields, A palmyra "Kattava' dividing the two fields belongs to the respondent, and he and his family members had been exercising full rights of ownership and possession of the said 'Kattava'. While so, disputes arose between the parties and the petitioner and his supporters obstructed the respondent's men from cutting the leaves of the palmyra 'Kattava'.

The respondent therefore filed a petition under Section 145 Cr.PC before the, Additional I Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry, and in M. C. No. 16 of 1955, the said Magistrate passed an order on 28-3-1956 under Section 145 (6) Cr.PC declaring the respondent's possession of the 'Kattava' and forbidding all disturbance of such possession until evicted there from in due course of law.

[4] Accordingly the 'Kattava' continued to be in the possession of the respondent. On 6-6-1953, while the servants of the respondent were cutting leaves horn the trees in the 'Kattava', the petitioner obstructed the cutting. On coming to know of this, the respondent went to the spot and directed his men to cut the palmyra leaves. While the leaves were being cut, the petitioner trespassed into the 'Kattava' and intimidated the men who were cutting the leaves.

The men got afraid and climbed down the trees. The petitioner and two others then removed the cut leaves as also the ladders and Knives belonging to the respondent's men. When the respondent protested against the high-handed action of the petitioner, the latter pushed him down and caused hurt to him.

[5] It was further alleged in the complaint that the petitioner had thus disobeyed the order made under Section 145 Cr.PC and committed offences punishable Under Sections 447, 506, 323, 379 and 188 IPC

[6] The complaint was taken on file by the Stationary II Class Sub Magistrate of Amalapuram as C.C. No. 686 of 1956 and the complainant was examined in chief. Then there was a change of Magistrates. Before the new Magistrate, the petitioner (accused No. 1) filed a petition on 24-8-1956 questioning the jurisdiction of he Magistrate to proceed with the case inasmuch is one of the offences alleged in the complaint viz.; the offence under Section 188 IPC could lot be taken cognizance of by the Court except m the complaint in writing of the Magistrate who lad passed the order under Section 145 Cr.PC or some other public servant to whom he is subordinate as enjoined by Section 195 Cr.PC and once the other offences of trespass, intimidation, nut and theft were alleged to have been committed in disobedience of the order passed under Sec-ion 145 Cr.PC even those offences could note taken cognizance of without a valid complaint s required by Section 195 Cr.PC and as admittedly no such complaint had been filed, the as should be dismissed 'in toto'.

[7] On that petition the learned Magistrate assed the following order:

I think the only course open is to proceed the trial of the case for the offences Under Sections 447, 506, 323 and 379 I. P, C, eliminating Section 188 I. P. C; and I will not be committing an irregularity if I follow this course as the offences complained of are distinct... The trial of the case will be proceeded with only for the offences Under Sections 447, 506, 323 and 379 IPC

It is that order which is challenged in this revision.

[8] I am of opinion that the Magistrate was right in dropping Section 188 and deciding to proceed with t