In Re: Papellugari Veera Reddi and Others

Wadsworth, J.—The basis of this revision petition is the assertion that the petitioners are not parties to any suit and that they cannot therefore be prosecuted by means of a complaint u/s 476, Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioners rely on the Full Bench ruling in Govinda Aiyar v. Rex (1918) 36 M.L.J. 448 : ILR 42 Mad. 540 , which has a rather misleading headnote. The decision really related to a case falling u/s 195 (1) (c), Criminal Procedure Code and had nothing to do with cases falling u/s 195 (1) (b) in which the accused need not be a party. Here one of the offences alleged is an offence u/s 193, Indian Penal Code, in connection with a proceeding before the District Munsif. Such an offence clearly falls u/s 195 (1) (b), Criminal Procedure Code and a complaint u/s 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code was necessary. The fact that the District Munsif has also complained that the facts establish offences under other sections to which Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, has no application, is not a ground for cancelling the complaint which was valid and necessary so far as the offence u/s 193, Indian Penal Code, was concerned. Certainly it would have been better had the District Munsif filed a separate complaint, in his executive capacity of the offences of theft, etc., instead of including them in his complaint u/s 476, Criminal Procedure Code. But the accused have not been damnified, more especially as there is a police charge sheet in respect of those offences upon which the prosecution can be based. I decline to interfere in revision and dismiss this petition with costs of the Public Prosecutor.