Har Narain Singh vs Nawab Chand Lal

Mr. R.N. Pandey, Senior Inspector of Local Bodies, inspected the Buxar Municipal Office. On the 19th November 1955, he prepared a report in which he stated that several cases of suspected misappropriation and embezzlement against Nawab Chand Lai had come to his notice. He also referred to the Vice-Chairman''s inspection note in which several other cases of misappropriation by Nawab Chand Lal were mentioned. He thought that the matter should be inquired into by the police and he accordingly recommended that that should be done.

He sent a copy of this report to the sub-inspector of police at Buxar, to the District Magistrate of Shahabad at Arrah and to the Superintendent of Police of Shahabad at Arrah. Mr. Chatterji, who has appeared before us on behalf of the petitioner, has stated that a copy of this report was sent to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate also. After completing investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet. Thereupon, two tax-daro-gas, namely, Nawab Chand Lal and All Akbar were put upon their trial for offences u/s 409 of the Penal Code.

As these misappropriations were alleged to have been committed in the course of several years, five different cases were started against Nawab Chand Lal and two different cases were started against Ali Akbar. All the seven cases ended in acquittal. The Chirman of the Buxar Municipal Board has filed seven memoranda of appeal against those acquittals accompanied by two applications u/s 417 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of special leave to appeal against acquittal.

The office has reported that the applications for special leave are not maintainable because the cases were not originally started upon complaints. In the first place, it seems to us that the petitioner should have filed seven applications for special leave against the order of acquittal in each of the seven cases. Each of these applications could be accompanied by a memorandum of appeal so that the appeal could be admitted in case special leave was granted.

In the second place, the question is whether the applications for special leave are maintainable. Mr. Chatterji has argued that the report forwarded by Mr. R.N. Pandey to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate should be held to be a complaint within the meaning of Section 4 (h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure because allegations relating to the commission of an offence were made in that, report with a view to the Magistrate taking action under the Code. In our opinion, the argument is entirely without substance. Section 4 (h) reads as follows:

" ''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."

It is obvious that Mr. Pandey drew up his report with a view to get the police to investigate into the matter and find out the details of the alleged offence of misappropriation against Nawab Chand Lal. Beyond saying that certain cases of irregularity, indicating the commission of misappropriation by Nawab Chand Lal have come to his notice, he has not made any allegation of fact which could constitute the offence of criminal misappropriation.

He forwarded copies of the report not only to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate but also to the Sub-Inspector of police and other officers, as we have already mentioned. Taking all these circumstances into consideration, we have come to the conclusion that he sent a copy of his report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate merely for the sake of his information and not with a view to his taking action upon the report as if it was a complaint.

In other words, We do not think that Mr. Pandey''s intention was that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate should take cognizance upon his report u/s 190 (1) (a) and proceed upon it under Sections 202 and 203 or 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In these circumstances, we hold that the copy of Mr. Pandey''s report which was forwarded to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was not a complaint within the meaning of Section 4 (h). It may be mentioned that no order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, directing the police to make investigation, has been shown to us. Hence it is possible that the police made the investigation at the request of Mr. Pandey himself as contained in his report.

There is also another ground on which the applications must fail. It is only the complainant who can file an application for special leave u/s 417 (3) and, quite clearly, the Chairman of the Municipal Board was not the complainant in these cases. Mr. Chatterji has attempted to argue that Mr. Pandey forwarded the report as a representative of the Municipality and, therefore, the Buxar Municipality is the real complainant in the cases.

It seems to us that there is no merit at all in this argument. Mr. Pandey was neither an employee nor a representative of the Municipal Board. He inspected the Municipal Board. He inspected the Municipal Office in discharge of his functions as Inspector of Local Bodies. He held his appointment as an officer of the State Government. Even if his report be treated as a complaint, he must be held to be the complainant in his capacity as Inspector of Local Bodies.

In our opinion, neither the Municipal Board nor its Chairman can be held to be the complainant. Both the two applications for special leave are, therefore, not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner and they are dismissed.

Mr. Chatterji has made a prayer that he should be permitted to make necessary corrections in the seven memoranda of appeal so as to convert them into applications for criminal revision under Sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He is permitted to make these corrections. After he has made these corrections, the applications will be numbered as criminal revisions and put up for admission.