( 1 ) I have had the advantage of perusing the judgment of my brother Brijlal Gupta. I agree with him that the date of signing the complaint was 1-6-1962 and that is the date on which the complaint was made. With great Inspect to him, I do not agree that it is optional for the Court not to record a finding of its being satisfied of the expediency even though it is satisfied about the expediency, but I agree that the non-recording of the satisfaction does not render the making of the complaint illegal. Signing the complaint amounts to making it; there is really one act caliecl differently. Sending the complaint to the Court concerned for trial is a different act and is of ministerial nature, for the reasons stated by me in my judgment in Mohd. Illayas v. State of U. P. , 1954 All U 241 : (AIR 1954 All 225), an appeal lies not from the finding about the expediency but from the making of the complaint, i. e. from the signing of the complaint. I further agree with my learned brother that the making of a complaint is an order within the meaning of section 419, Cr, P. C. , which requires an appeal to be accompanied by a copy of the order.

( 2 ) I have already given my reason