( 1 ) IN proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P. C. , between Niranjan Singh on one side and the applicants and others on the other side, it was held by the Court under Section 145 (6) that niranjan Singh was in possession and the Court passed an order prohibiting the applicants and their companions from interfering with his possession. Inspite of this order, the applicants forcibly took possession of the land. The order was passed by a Sub-divisional Magistrate. When the applicants took forcible possession of the land Niranjan Singh protested, but he was threatened and his witnesses induced him to leave the spot. Niranjan Singh then approached the additional District Magistrate and asked him to make a complaint against the applicants under sections 188 and 447, Penal Code. The Additional District Magistrate filed a complaint against the applicants under those sections and they were prosecuted and have been convicted under section 188, Penal Code. They now come up in revision against their conviction.

( 2 ) IT was contended that there is no evidence to prove that the act done by the applicants caused annoyance. An offence under Section 188 is committed when an order lawfully promulgated is infringed and the infringement causes, or tends to cause, annoyance or injury. It is not necessary that annoyance is actually caused; it is sufficient if the infringement has a tendency to cause annoyance. It cannot be doubted that in this case the act done by the applicants, i. e. , of taking forcible possession inspite of an order under Section 145 (6), passed against them, had a tendency to annoy Niranjan Singh. The evidence shows that it did cause annoyance to him; he made a report of the occurrence and also moved the Additional District Magistrate to file a complaint against the applicants. If he had not been annoyed by their act, he would not have taken these steps. It appears that he was annoyed even at the moment when the applicants were taking forcible possession; it was on account of his annoyance that he was induced by his witnesses to leave the spot so that something serious might not happen. There is no substance in this contention.

( 3 ) THE next and main contention is that the Additional District Magistrate had no power to file the complaint. Section 195 (1) (a) of the code lays down that no Court shall take cognisance of an offence punishable under Section 188, Penal Code, except on the complaint of the public servant Concerned, or of some other public servant to whom he is subordinate. The public servant concerned in the instant case was the Sub-divisional Magistrate who had passed the order under Section 145 (6) that was disobeyed by the applicants. If he was subordinate to the additional District Magistrate, the trial Court rightly took cognisance of the offence on the complaint of the Additional District Magistrate. It was contended by Mr. G. Kumar that the sub-divisional Magistrate was subordinate, not to the Additional District Magistrate, but to the sessions Judge; he relied upon the provisions of Sub-section (3) which are to the effect that for the purposes of Section 195 a Court will be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of the former Court.

( 4 ) IT has been rightly pointed out in the past that Section 195 makes a distinction between complaints that to be filed by public servants and complaints to be filed by Courts. Sub-section (a) deals with complaints to be filed by public servants, while Sub-sections (c) and (b) deal with complaints filed by Courts. This distinction is preserved in Section 476 of the Code, which provides for the proceedings to be taken by Courts prior to the filing of complaints in respect of offences mentioned in Sub-sections (b) and (c) and for appeals from their orders. That section does not at all deal with complaints to be filed by public servants. In the Code no procedure is laid down for the filing of