V. D. BHARGAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application in revision which has come to this Court on being referred to a Bench by a learned Single Judge as there was an important question of law involved in the case.

( 2 ) THE applicant had applied for a licence for a gun to the District Magistrate of Agra. That application was sent to the Tahsildar for a report. He reported that the applicant was not a fit person for being granted the licence. The applicant again applied to the District Magistrate giving a list of the properties of his and saying that the report given by the Tahsildar was incorrect. That was again sent to the Tahsildar for further report. The Tehsildar again reported that the list of the property given by the applicant was not correct and further that he was not a proper person whom a licence should be given. Thereupon the applicant sent a petition to the Chief Minister alleging therein that the Tahsildar and the Kanungo had demanded a sum of Rs. 200/- as bribe for reporting in his favour and since this money had not been paid the report that was given was adverse to him. This petition which was sent to the Chief Minister was sent by the Government to the District magistrate Agra who forwarded it to Mr. M. G. Yazdani, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kiraoli for enquiry. The applicant was called by Mr. Yazdani and he enquired about this application and came to the conclusion that the application made against the Tahsildar and the Kanungo was false and he made a report to the Government. Thereafter the applicant was prosecuted under Section 182,. P. C. by the Sub-Divisional magistrate and was convicted and sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/ -. In appeal the fine was set aside but the sentence of imprisonment was maintained. Against that order of conviction the applicant has come to this Court.

( 3 ) SO far as the question of the report being false is concerned, it is a question of fact which is concluded by a finding of the Court below and this Court cannot interfere. Learned counsel for the applicant had argued that in this case the prosecution was not proper, because, as is provided under Section 195, Criminal P. C. , no court can take cognizance of an offence punishable under section 183. P. C. except on a complaint filed by the public servant concerned or some other public servant to whom he is subordinate.

( 4 ) IT was contended that the public servant concerned to whom the complaint had been made was the Chief Minister and it was the Chief Minister who could file the complaint and not Mr. Yazdani, or it should have been any superior officer to the Chief Minister who could have filed the complaint. Learned counsel has relied on the decisions in Sudarsan Barhambhat v. Emperor, air 1947 Pat 64; U Hlaing v. R. P. Abaigail, AIR 1937 Rang 232 and Sultan v. C. De M. Wellbourne, AIR 1925 Rang 364. In those cases the statements had been made to police officers. Later on complaint was filed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate before whom the statements had been filed. Therefore the facts of this case are different from the facts of the reported cases, which have been cited by learned counsel. In this case the information had been given initially to the Chief Minister by the applicant. When enquiry was being made by Mr. Yazdani the information was again given to him with regard to the demanding of Rs. 200/- by the Tehsildar and the Kanungo and about his status. Therefore, ft cannot be said that in the present case the information had not been given to mr. Yazdani on the basis of which he could file the complaint and he would, under Section 195, criminal P. C. be the public servant concerned.

( 5 ) RELIANCE was also placed by learned counsel for the applicant on a Division Bench case of this court in Matau v. King-Emperor, 7 All LJ 1143 where the accused had applied for transfer of his case from Tehsildars Court and the applicant made certain unfounded allegations against the tehsildar. He was exam

Click Here to Read the rest of this document