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), Criminal P.C., which says:

Complaint means the allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but it does not include the report of a police officer.

3. "Information" is not defined, but has been held to cover statements of witnesses: Khudiram Mookerjee v. Empress [1897] 1 CWN 105, communications by post: Karim Bakhsh v. Adil Khan [1899] AWN 201, anonymous communications by post In the matter of Hari Narayan Biswas [1899] 3 CWN 65, and may be received in another capacity than that of Magistrate: Sundaresam, In re [1920] 43 Mad. 709. The essential difference between a complaint and information is that a Magistrate acts on a complaint because the complainant has asked him to act, but a Magistrate acts on information on his own initiative. In the case of a complaint the Magistrate is asked to prosecute the persons named as accused, and he has then to decide whether he will accede to the request, or not. If he does not, then he must record his reasons u/s 202(1), Criminal P.C., and may either make an enquiry himself, or direct an enquiry or investigation, or dismiss the complaint u/s 203, Criminal P.C., after recording his reasons. But in the case of receiving information, the Magistrate is not asked by anyone to issue process, and if he does not choose to act on the information, he need not record any reasons or pass any order.

4. A Magistrate acting u/s 190(1)(c) upon information or upon his own knowledge or suspicion, acts in each of these cases of his own accord and initiative. It is for this reason that Section 191 provides that he must inform the accused that the accused may be tried by another Court. In the case of information there is no complainant to examine on oath. On a complaint the complainant is first examined on oath unless, as in the present case, the complaint has been made by a public servant acting in the discharge of his official duty: Section 200(aa), Criminal P.C. Now the Tahsildar wrote a document in English on 12th March 1929 addressed to the S.D.M., that is, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. In that document he states after setting forth certain facts:

Sheo Pratap Singh and his servants have committed an of offence described in Section 353, I.P.C. It is therefore requested that the three persons named overleaf be tried under the said section.

5. We have here in this document of the Tahsildar the allegation in writing to the Magistrate that the three persons named had committed an offence, and a definite request that they should be tried u/s 353, I.P.C. Accordingly all the ingredients of a complaint, as defined u/s 4(h), Criminal P.C., are present. The document therefore is clearly a complaint. Some argument was made