JUDGMENT : I propose to dispose of these three appeals together because their facts are identical and the points raised in them are the same. Criminal Appeal No. 311 of 1962 has been filed against Maiku. Criminal Appeal No. 312 of 1962 has been filed against Shakoor and Criminal Appeal No. 313 of 1962 has been filed against Mangrey. The three respondents were prosecuted and tried separately before the Additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate Sitapur on a charge under Section 5 Telegraph Wires (Unlawful Possession) Act. The charge against Maiku respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 311 of 1962 was that on 25th June, 1959 at about 2 P.M., he was found in possession of two Lachhis (weighing 30 seers) of Railway Telegraph Wire while he was going on a rickshaw in Sitapur. Against Shakoor it was alleged that he had with him three bundles of Telegraph Wire when he was arrested near Sah Maholi, police station Kotwali, district Sitapur, at about 9.20 A.M. on 12th May, 1959. Mangrey respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 313 of 1962 was accused of possessing one Coil of Railway Telegraph Wire (weighing 28 seers) at about 3.15 P.M. on 25th June, 1959.

2. By separate judgments, but on the same reasoning, the learned Magistrate acquitted the three respondents. Dissatisfied with the judgments passed by the learned Magistrate in all the three cases, the State has filed these appeals.

3. The learned Magistrate acquitted the respondents because according to him in all the three cases there was no proper complaint as required by Section 7 of the Telegraph Wires (Unlawful Possession) Act; hence the prosecution was misconceived and bad in law and the respondents could not be tried and convicted for committing the offence under Section 5 of the aforesaid Act. He did not enter into the merits of the case against any of the three respondents.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the respondents and on going through the record of the cases, I am of opinion that the conclusion reached by the learned Magistrate is unsupportable and his judgments must be set aside. Section 7 of the Telegraph Wire (Unlawful Possession) Act reads :

"7(1) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act, save on complaint made by or under the authority of the Central Government or by an officer specially empowered in this behalf by that Government.

(2) No Court inferior to that of a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class, shall try any offence punishable under this Act."

By virtue of notification No. SRO 1819 of the Ministry of Communication, Post and Telegraph Departments New Delhi dated 15th November, 1951, as published in Government of India Gazette Part II dated 24th November, 1951 in Part II Section 3 at page 2008 (2016) issued under Section 7 of the aforesaid Act quoted above, the Superintendent of Police, Sitapur, has been authorised to make the requisite complaint against persons accused of committing offences under that Act.

5. A reference to the record of the trial Court in each of the three cases shows that proper complaints signed by the Superintendent of Police, Sitapur, were filed before the Magistrate against each respondents in the case relating to him. The complaint filed in the case of Maiku respondent is Ext. Ka-8 which has been proved by P. W. 2 Sri S. N. Shukla in that case. Ext. Ka-2 is the complaint signed by the Superintendent of Police Sitapur, and filed in the case of Mangrey respondent. This has been proved by P. W. 3 Sri H.N.P. Saksena. A similar complaint Ext. Ka-6, signed by the Superintendent of Police, Sitapur, and proved by Sri S. N. Shukla (P.W. 3) in that case was filed against Shakoor. It is true that there is no date below the signatures of Superintendent of Police, Sitapur, in each of the above complaints but that, in my opinion, is wholly inconsequential and does not invalidate the complaint. The proceedings in the case actually started in each case after these complaints

Click Here to Read the rest of this document