1. In this revision petition two questions were raised:

first, whether Shri T.R. Velunni, District Magistrate at Trichur at the relevant time, who was also the Commissioner of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, referred to hereafter as the Act, was competent to prefer the complaint and

secondly, whether under the proviso (aa) to S.200, Crl. P. C. his examination by the Magistrate on taking cognizance of the offence on the complaint, could have been dispensed with.

I see no difficulty whatever in answering the first question against the revision petitioner, for the complaint in this case fulfils the definition of the term 'complaint' in S.4 (1) (h), Crl. PC. and the Magistrate is competent under S.190 (1) (a), Crl. PC., to take cognizance of the offence. This was also conceded by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

2. On the second question, the answer would depend on whether, the complainant in preferring the complaint, was acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty; if he was, his examination upon the complaint could have been dispensed with under the proviso referred to above. It was not contended, that as a District Ma