JUDGMENT

Ziaul Hasan, J - These are two applications in revision against appellate orders of the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Bahraich upholding the convictions and sentences of the applicants under Section 188, I.P.C. Application No. 83 has been brought by Babu alone while Application No. 84 has been filed on behalf of nine persons. It appears that on 27th January 1939 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Nanpara in the Bahraich District took proceedings under Section 144, Criminal P.C., and proclaimed a notice that as a breach of the peace was apprehended by the Muslims of villages Shankarpur and Muqam intending to sacrifice cows against previous practice, it was ordered that from 31st January 1939 to 3rd February 1939, (both days inclusive) no person should sacrifice a cow within a radius of a mile from Shankarpur and Muqam and that five or more persons should not assemble at any place except for prayers. On 8th February 1939, the station officer of Sunwan, within whose jurisdiction Shankarpur and Muqam are situated, made a report that 28 persons named in the report sacrificed cows on 1st February 1939, inside the house of Abdul Razzaq (one of the 28 persons reported against) in village Shankarpur. A similar report was made on the same date against three persons one of whom is Babu, applicant in Application No. 83, and in both cases the Sub-Inspector suggested that cases under Section 188, I.P.C., be started against the persons reported against. On these reports the Sub-Divisional Magistrate sent reports to the District Magistrate on 8th February praying that the persons mentioned in the Sub. Inspector's report be prosecuted under Section 188, I.P.C. In the case of Babu the learned District Magistrate passed the following order on the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's report:

The prosecution of Babu and two others under Section 188, I.P.C., is sanctioned. The case is made over to Mr. Raghubir Singh, Magistrate, First Class, for disposal.

2. A similar order was passed against the 28 persons mentioned above in the above case. Thereupon, 28 persons including the applicants in Application No. 84 were prosecuted under Section 188 in one case and Babu and two others in the other case. Out of the 28 accused the learned trying Magistrate acquitted 17 and convicted 11. In the other case two were acquitted and Babu was convicted. In the first case Abdul Razzaq was sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100 and his co-accused to four months' rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 25 each. In the other case Babu was given a sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25. All the convicted persons in the two cases appealed but their appeals were dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge exoept with regard to two of Abdul Razzaq's co-accused to whom he gave the benefit of doubt and whom he acquitted. It is thus that the nine persons in one case and Babu alone in the other bring these applications for revision.

3. The first point taken before me is that the trial and conviction of all the applicants was illegal as no complaint as required by Section 195(1)(a), Criminal P.C., had been made by the learned Magistrate who promulgated the order under Section 144. This contention appears to me to have force. The Ireports of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate in both the cases show that they were made to the District Magistrate with a view to obtaining his permission for the prosecution of the persons concerned. The learned Government Advocate argues that the said reports were in fact complaints under Section 195(1)(a), but I am unable to agree with this view. Not only did the learned District Magistrate not treat these reports as complaints but the lists of papers that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate submitted along with his reports to the District Magistrate clearly show that the reports were not meant to be complaints but only reports for sanction of prosecution of the persons