Complaint by Court u /s 193 essential.

Govinda Menon, J.-We think that the point of law involved in this case on which there is a conflict of opinion should be decided by a Full Bench. The decision of Leach, C.J., and Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J., in Nallappa Goundan v. Chinnammal1, runs counter to four earlier decisions Shanmugasundaram Pillai v. Manicka Mudaliar2, and Ammana Sastri v. Sitaramayya3 and Gurubasayya v. Siddalingappa4 and Ramaswam Konar v. Nachiar Ammal5. Recently one of us considered the point in Criminal R.C. No. 1524 of 1949 and distinguished the case in Nallappa Goundan v. Chinnamali1 The same case was considered in Chinnayya Goundan v. Emperor6. Sen, J., of the Calcutta High Court in Bushan Singh v. Ram Nagina Singh7, expresses the opinion that where an offence of defamation is committed by a person during the course of a proceeding in Court, no complaint under section 500 can be made against that person, except under a complaint filed by the Court of the Officer concerned under section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The ratio decidendi of quite a large body of case law, namely, Manjayya v. Sesha Chetti8, Perianna Muthirian v. Vengu Aiyar9, In re Ravanappa Reddi10 and Dholliah v. Sub-Inspector of Police, Wellington station11 is to the effect that in similar circumstances, where the facts constitute two offences for one of which a complaint by the Court is necessary and for the other no such complaint is necessary, it is not possible to circumvent the provision of section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, by filing a complaint for an offence for which a previous complaint under section. 195 is not necessary. Chandra Reddi, J., who referred the case to a Bench, was also of the view that there is a conflict. We therefore are of the opinion that the entire case may be posted before a Full Bench for resolving the conflict on the point of law involved.

(This case came on for hearing before the Full Bench accordingly).

K.S. Jayarama Aiyar for C.K. Venkalanarasimham and Padmini Raghavan for Petitioner.

The Public Prosecutor (V.T. Rangaswami Aiyangar) on behalf of the State.

M.K. Nambiar and M. Srinivasagopalan for Respondent.

The Court made the following

Order

Govinda Menon, J.-The petitioner was the accused in C.C. No. 2 of 1950 on the file of the Court of Joint Magistrate of Kumbakonam and he seeks to revise the order of the Joint Magistrate overruling a preliminary objection raised, that without a complaint from the Court under section 195(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code the proceedings now pending in C.C. No. 2 of 1950 cannot be enquired into.

The petitioner is the managing director of Messrs. Raman and Raman, Limited, a joint stock company running a fleet of motor buses in the Tanjore District. O.S. No. 37 of 1944 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam was a suit for a declaration that a sale by the third defendant therein to the first defendant (present petitioner) was void and inoperative and for recovery of possession of a number of buses which formed the subject-matter of the suit. The plaintiff in that suit is the present respondent and his claim was that he purchased the buses from the third defendant, but that after having sold the same to the plaintiff, the third defendant again purported to sell them to the first defendant firm, which sale had no authority or justification. O.S. No. 37 of 1944 filed on 3rd October, 1944, was on the ground that the plaintiff purchased the buses on 10th April, 1944. The contentions of the first defendant, the present petitioner, among others were that the sale to the plaintiff by the third defendant was a collusive transaction made with the object of resiling from the earlier sale to him. While the suit was pending, the plaintiff applied for the appointment of a receiver and he was appointed receiver on 7th March, 1945. As receiver, the plaintiff got possession of the buses and was running the same. There was a decree as prayed for in O.S. No. 37 of 1944 and the plaintiff who functioned as a r