Non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 195 of Cr.P.C. renders the trial and conviction void ab initio.

JUDGMENT :

Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

This appeal has been preferred by the accused against judgment dated 7.6.2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in sessions trial No. 17 of 2006, titled State of H.P. vs. Mukesh Kumar, whereby he has been convicted under Section 177 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in case of default of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant Mukesh Kumar along with one Leela Devi wife of Partap Singh had stayed in a room at Matri Anchal Sarai at Sri Naina Devi Ji on 26.12.2005 by depicting her as his wife Lata Devi in the register of Sarai and on 27.12.2005 the said lady, on account of pains, was taken to CHC Ghawandal, where she was declared to be brought dead by the doctor. At that time also, appellant had disclosed the identity of deceased as his wife namely Lata Devi. However, later on during investigation under Section 174 Cr.P.C, it was disclosed that deceased was not Lata Devi, wife of Mukesh Kumar(accused), but was Leela Devi wife of Partap Singh, resident of Tunai, P.O. and Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, which resulted into registration of criminal case against the appellant.

3. On completion of investigation, challan under Sections 177, 304-A and 366 IPC was presented in the Court against the accused and on conclusion of trial, he was acquitted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 366 and 304-A IPC, but was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 177 IPC.

4. Against the acquittal of appellant under Sections 366 and 304-A IPC, no appeal has been preferred by respondent/State. So far as the commission of offence under Section 177 IPC is concerned, the allegation of prosecution is that appellant/accused had disclosed wrong identity of deceased Leela Devi in Matri Anchal Sarai as well as at the time of conducting postmortem examined of her body in the hospital.

5. It is undisputed that neither the In-charge or care taker or official responsible for making entries in the Matri Anchal Sarai nor the doctor of CHC Ghawandal has made any complaint in writing so as to enabling the Court to take cognizance of offence committed by the appellant under Section 177 IPC.

6. Section 177 IPC provides punishment to an accused, who being legally bound to furnish information on any subject to any public servant, furnishes the wrong information as true, on the subject which he knows or has reason to believe to be false. Section 177 IPC falls in Chapter X of IPC, which provides punishment for contempts of the lawful authority of public servant. In the facts and circumstances, explained herein-above, I doubt as to whether at all Section 177 IPC is attracted in the present case or not. Even if it is considered that accused/petitioner was liable for commission of offence under Section 177 IPC, then also mandatory provisions of Section 195 of Cr.P.C. would be attracted, which provides procedure for prosecution for contempts of lawful authority of public servant, wherein its Sub-section 1(a)(i) provides that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 177 IPC except on in writing complaint of public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom such public servant is administratively subordinate.

7. First of all, in the present case, there is no evidence of contempts of lawful authority of public servant. Secondly, even if the disclosure of wrong name of deceased in the Sarai or to the doctor is to be considered an offence committed under Section 177 IPC, then concerned Public Officer has not filed any complaint in writing nor some other public servant to whom concerned public servant was administratively subordinate has filed any such written complaint.

8. The Apex Court in C.Muniappan and others vs. D.K. Rajendran and others, (2010) AIR SC 3718 has reiterated that provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. are mand