Shah, J.

[1] Krishna Tukaram Jadhav and Sambhu Krishna Jadhav--whom I will hereafter refer to as the petitioners,--addressed a letter in the form of a petition dated 2-9-1952, to the Chief Minister of Bombay and to the Minister of Civil 'supplies, Bombay. In that petition they made certain allegations against one Vithoba Laxman Sakpaj. It is unnecessary to set out the details of those allegations. Thereafter the Secretary to the Chief Minister, Bombay State, filed a complaint in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate, 8th Court, Esplanade, Bombay, charging the

"Petitioners with having committed an offence under Section 182 read with Section 34, Penal Code. It was the case of the complainant that both the petitioners gave false information to the Chief Minister, 'with the intention of causing thereby the Chief Minister to proceed against and punish Vithoba Laxman Sakpal or with the intention to cause the Chief Minister to use his lawful power as public servant to the injury or annoyance of Vithoba Laxman Sakpal. The complainant produced before the Court an authority signed by the Chief Minister of Bombay to the following effect: "i hereby direct and authorise my Secretary Shri V. Y. Tonpe to file a complaint under Section 182 read with Section 34, Penal Code against Krishna Tukaram Jadhav and Sambhu Krishna Jadhav for giving false information to me against Vithoba Laxman Sakpal by presenting application dated 2-91952. " The learned Magistrate entertained the complaint and proceedings were started against the two petitioners. After evidence was partially recorded, counsel for the accused raised an objection that the proceedings before the Court were without jurisdiction as there was no complaint on record of the Chief Minister who alone could file a complaint tor the offence charged. The learned Magistrate held that the expression complaint' in Section 195, Criminal P. C. was not used in any technical sense as defined in Section 4 of the Code. In the view of the learned Magistrate:

"As the Chief Minister had in writing directed and authorised his Secretary by name to file a complaint under Section 182 read with Section 34, Penal Code against the accused by name for giving false information etc. , it was obvious that the Chief Minister intended that those persons should be punished and that the prosecution was not really at the instance of some other person. " The learned Magistrate accordingly overruled the contention and directed the case to, proceed. Krishna Tukaram has come to this Court in revision against that order.

[2] The order passed by the learned trial Magistrate is an interlocutory order and normally this Court does not interfere with proceedings before subordinate criminal Courts at an interlocutory stage. But in this case it appears that the proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate have been entertained by him without jurisdiction. On the view that I take the proceedings should not be pennitted to run their normal course and an order either of conviction or acquittal should be recorded before entertaining an application in revision it would involve the two accused into considerable trouble and harassment if the proceedings in the Court of first instance are not quashed at this stage. In my judgment the proceedings appear to have been entertained without jurisdiction.

[3] Section 195 (1) (a) , Criminal P. C. provides:

"No court shall take cognizance-- (a) of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188, Penal Code, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned, or of some other public servant to whom he is subordinate. " in the present case it is conceded that there is no complaint in writing of the public servant concerned. Evidently the offence with which the accused are charged is the offence of giving to the Chief Minister of the State of Bombay, who is a public servant, information which the accused knew or believed to be false and intended thereby to cause, or knowing it