Raghubar Dayal JUDGMENT
M. Hidayatullah, J.
1. This is an appeal by one Dault Ram who was prosecuted under s. 182 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for three months. His revision application in the High Court of Punjab at Chandigarh was dismissed in limine but he obtained special leave from this court and has filed this appeal.
2. The appellant was working as a Patwari and one August 19, 1958, he wrote a letter to the Tehsildar of Pathankot that on the previous day he had been set upon by two persons Hans Raj and Kans Raj who beat him severely and robbed him of certain of his official papers and some money, which was with him, partly belonging to him and partly to the Government. At the end of the letter which he wrote to the Tehsildar, he stated that the letter was written for his information. The Tehsildar, however, forwarded the letter to the Sub-Divisional Officer who in his turn sent it on to the police. The police enquired into the facts and reported that the allegations in letter were false. Meanwhile, it appears that the appellant entered into some sort of compromise with Hans Raj and Kans Raj and wrote another letter saying that as they were his relatives and he had found the papers and money, the proceedings if any be dropped and the papers be consigned to the record room. The matter however was pursued further and when the report of the police came that the allegations in the original letter were false, the Tehsildar asked the police that a "calendar" be drawn up. The police however launched a prosecution against the appellant under s. 182 of the Indian Penal Code, and after due trial, the appellant was found guilty of that offence and was sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment. His appeal and revision failed and we have been informed that the appellant has severed out his entire sentence.
3. The only question in this case ins whether a complaint in writing as required by s. 195 had been presented by the public servant concerned. The public servant who was moved by the appellant was undoubtedly the Tehsildar. Whether the appellant wanted the Tehsildar to take action or not, the fact remains that he moved the Tehsildar on what is stated to be a false averment of facts. He had charged Hans Raj and Kans Raj with offences under the Penal Code and he moved his superior officer for action even though he might have stated in the letter that it was only for his information. We are prepared to assume that he expected that some action would be taken. In fact his second letter that he had compromised the matter and the proceedings might be dropped clearly shows that he anticipated some action on the part of his superior officer. The question is therefore whether under the provisions of s. 195, it was not incumbent on the Tehsildar to present a complaint in writing against the appellant and not leave the court to be moved by the police by putting in a charge sheet. The words of s. 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code are explicit. The section reads as follows :
"(1) No Court shall take cognizance - (a) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 ........