Dr. K.T. Sampath Kumar vs State of Andhra Pradesh

This revision is filed against the order passed in Crl.MP No. 1647 of 1996 in CC No.39 of 1994 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Markapur.

The petitioner was charged for the offence punishable u/s 145, read with Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.PC. The allegation is that in MC No.7 of 1992 filed u/s 145 Cr.PC, LW3, by name Golamaru Venkata Narayana Reddy who was arrayed as ''B'' party produced the xerox copy of the document purported to have been signed by the Collector giving permission to the accused arrayed as ''A'' party in the MC. The Revenue Divisional Officer before whom the proceedings were pending, referred that document to the Collector. The Collector said lhat he did not give such permission and his signature on the document is fabricated and he directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to take action against Dr. K. T. Sampath Kumar and also G. Venkata Narayana Reddy. Thereupon the Revenue Divisional Officer filed a complaint before the S.H.O., Markapur, to take action. The S.H.O. made investigation and filed charge-sheet and the charge-sheet was taken on file and numbered as CC No.39 of 1994 on the file of the Judicial l-''irst Class Magistrate, Markapur. According to the petitioner the procedure is not correct. By virtue of Section 195(1)(II)(b) Cr.PC, it is the Court before whom the document was filed should file a complaint and the question of giving complaint to the police does not arise. In support of his contention the learned Counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in Thammaneni Dibba Reddy v. the Stale of Andhra Pradesh 1996 (2) ALD 103.

In this case it was categorically held that:

"The party cannot be tried and convicted without a complaint by a Court in which the said documents are produced and used as evidence".

The learned Counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Daulat Ram Vs. State of Punjab, , wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that:

"Now the offence u/s 182 of the Penal Code, if any, was undoubtedly complete when the appellant had moved the Tehsildar for action. Section 182 does not require that action must always be taken if the person who moves the public servant knows or believes that action would be taken. In making his report to the Tehsildar therefore, if the appellant believed that some action would be taken (and he had no reason to doubt that it would not) the offence under that Section was complete. It was therefore incumbent, if the prosecution was to be launched, that the complaint in writing should be made by the Tehsildar as the public servant concerned in this case. On the other hand what we find is that a complaint by the Tehsildar was not filed at all, but a charge-sheet was put in by the Station House Officer. The learned Counsel for the State Government tries to support the action by submitting that Section 195 had been complied with inasmuch as when the allegations had been disproved, the letter of the Superintendent of Police was forwarded to the Tehsildar and he asked for "a calender" (sic). This paper was filed along with the charge-sheet and it is stated mat this satisfies the requirements of Section 195. In our opinion, this is not a due compliance with the provisions of that Section. What the Section contemplates'' is that the complaint must be in writing by the public servant concerned and there is no such compliance in the present case. The congnizance of the case was therefore wrongly assumed by the Court without the complaint in writing of the public servant namely the Tehsildar in this case. The trial was thus without jurisdiction ab initio and the conviction cannot be maintained."

In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court it should be held that the Revenue Divisional Officer should have directly filed a complaint instead of filing a complaint before the Station House Officer, Markapur. Therefore the requirement of Section 195(ii)(b) are not fulfilled in this case. Hence the proceedings are vitiated and the orders of the Court below are set aside.

The revision is accordingly allowed.