ORDER

Bennet, J. - This is an application in revision filed on behalf of three persons, Sheo Pratap Singh, Gaja and Baram Din Singh, who have been convicted by a Magistrate u/s 353, 1. P.C., and sentenced to one day's simple imprisonment each and fines of Rs. 100, Rs. 20 and Rs. 25 respectively. An appeal was made to the learned Sessions Judge and dismissed by him, and the application in revision is directed against that appeal. In revision grounds 1 and 3 have been argued. Ground 1 alleges that

the conviction of the applicants is wholly void and illegal inasmuch as the learned Magistrate omitted to inform the applicants u/s 191, Criminal P.C., of their right to have the case tried by another Court.

2. This argument assumes chat the Magistrate acted u/s 190(1)(c). The record shows that the Magistrate issued process on receiving a writing from the Tahsildar forwarding a writing from the amin, who stated that the accused had assaulted him in discharge of his duty. The question is whether the Magistrate acted on informations u/s 190(1)(c), or on a complaint u/s 190(1)(a). If he acted on a complaint, Section 191, Criminal P.C., does not apply. A complaint is defined in Section 4(h), Crimi