Report of a Police Officer is also a complaint.

This petition is filed for revising the order of the District Magistrate, Madurai confirming the conviction of the petitioner under section 182, Indian Penal Code and sentence of fine of Rs. 50 passed on him.

The petitioner sent through post a complaint against one Ramakrishnan, P.W.1. regarding the theft of his cycle to the Additional Sub-Inspector, Tirupparankundram. The complaint, Exhibit P-5 was received on 17th July, 1961, by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Tirupparankundram. He registered the case and transferred it to the Detective Sub-Inspector, P.W. 11 for investigation. P.W. 11 took up investigation and on enquiry found that the case was false and served a referred charge-sheet notice on the petitioner on 1st September, 1961. He obtained a report from P.W. 1 Ramakrishnan, against whom the petitioner gave the complaint of theft and registered a case under section 211, Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. He applied to the Sub-Magistrate praying for permission to investigate into the offence and obtained an order from him.

Both the Courts have found that the petitioner gave information to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Tirupparankundram knowing that the information he was giving was false and intending that the public servant should cause annoyance to P.W. 1. The finding is a concurrent one and is not challenged by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Sri Venkatanarasimhan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner raised two questions of law. Firstly, he contended that the complaint given by the petitioner was received by P.W. 10 and therefore under section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code it is only "the public servant concerned" that may prefer a complaint. According to the learned Counsel, the public servant concerned in this case is P.W. 10 and the complaint given by P.W. 11 is not in accordance with law. P.W. 11 stated in his evidence that, after completing the investigation, himself and P.W. 10 laid the charge sheet. The charge-sheet is signed by both P. W. 10, the Additional Sub-Inspector of Police, and P.W. 11, the Sub-Inspector of Police, who investigated the offence and therefore this point does not arise.

The second point the learned Counsel raised was that the alleged complaint preferred by P.Ws. 10 and 11 was only a charge-sheet and that under section 195, Criminal Procedure Code only a complaint should be filed by the public servant concerned and therefore the proceedings were illegal. P.W. 11 obtained orders from the Sub-Magistrate for investigating into a non-cognizable offence and alter investigating it filed a charge-sheet. Section 195(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 of the Indian Penal Code except on a complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or some other public servant, to whom he is subordinate,

The contention of the learned Counsel is that there is no provision for a Police Officer to file a charge-sheet under this section ; he can only file a complaint in writing as any other public servant. Reliance was placed on the definition of the word ‘complaint’ in section 4(1)(h) of the Criminal Procedure Code. “Complaint” is defined as meaning an allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under the Criminal Procedure Code that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but it does not include the report of a Police Officer. The definition having specifically excluded the report of a Police Officer, it is submitted that a report of a Police Officer cannot be taken as a complaint under section 195(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Section 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which defines various words and expressions, runs as follows:

“In this code the following words and expressions have the following meanings, unless a different intention appears from the subject or context..................”

From this section it is