AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jackson, J.—The first point is that the Public Prosecutor having withdrawn from the case, the accused must be acquitted. It does not appear
that there was, formal withdrawal from the prosecution-under Section 494. The Prosecution Inspector simply dropped out and let a vakil carry on
the prosecution in what was practically a private complaint.
The second point is whether the Police on receiving information in a complaint forwarded u/s 202 can investigate u/s 156. The Police need no
more than report; but if they choose to investigate, it is not illegal. ''
If Emperor v. Haji Nur Mahomed ILR (1928) B. 339 is to the contrary, I respectfully disagree. In In re Arula Kotiah (1911) 10 M.L.T. 120 :
12 Cri. L.J. 463 it was held that a Magistrate having taken cognizance of a complaint is bound, if he decides to delay process u/s 202, to call for a
report and cannot act u/s 156 (3) ; but this ruling does not affect the powers of the Police. It would be a strange state of the law if a dangerous
murderer was at large and the Police could not arrest him because some misguided person had already lodged a complaint so suspiciously false
that the Magistrate had called for a report. King-Emperor v. Bhola Bhagat ILR (1925) Pat. 379 is to the same effect.
The petition is dismissed.