The State vs M. Meera Sahib

This is an appeal preferred by the State and is directed against the order of the Stationary First Class Magistrate of Adoor in C.C. No. 64 of 1955 acquitting the accused u/s 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that the complainant did not appear on that day inspite of summons.

What is urged on to behalf of the State is that the proceedings in question were initiated not on the basis of a complaint as defined in Section 4 (1) (h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as It was on the basis of a police report and hence the acquittal u/s 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was irregular. It is further pointed out that .the absence of the Police Officer concerned was on sufficient grounds also.

The main question to be considered is whether the complaint contemplated u/s 247 excludes a report of a Police Officer as in the present case. Here the offence with regard, to which the report was submitted was one under Sections 8 and 9 of the Motor Vehicles Act, XIV of 1950. On behalf of the Appellant reliance was placed on State v. Velayudhan 1951 Ker LT 520 (A) to show that Section 247 was not applicable" to such cases. But in later decision of this Court namely Saramma Zacharia v. State, 1952 Ker. LT 487 : AIR 1953 Ker 43) (B) when dealing with the question of the jurisdiction of a Magistrate to take cognisance of a non-cognisable offence on report by the Police u/s 180 of the Travancore Code of Criminal Procedure (corresponding to Sectionl90 of the Indian Code) it was observed as follows at p. 488 (of Ker LT : (at p. 44 of AIR) further, if a report to a Magistrate by the Tice with respect to a non-cognisable offence could not be considered as a report within the meaning of Section 186 (1) (ia) such report will constitute a complaint as that expression is defied in Section 4 (1) (d) (Section 4 (1) (h) of AM v. of 1908). (See Emperor v. Sada, ILR 26 Bok 150 (FB) (C); Mehr Chiragh Din v. Emperor AIR 1924 Lah 258 (D); Emperor Vs. Shivaswami Guruswami, ; Ragulnath v. Emperor AIR 1932 Bom 610 (F) and Sirkar v. Vasudevan Pillai 17 Ker LJ 816 (G)).

So we are of opinion that the contention that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to act under I Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the present case cannot stand.

Then coming to the plea that the absence of the Head Constable concerned was on Bufiw client grounds and hence the Magistrate was j wrong in disposing of the case on that day, there is nothing to show that these facts were brought to the Magistrate''s notice when the case was taken up and adjournment applied for. Police only are to show proper diligence and comply with 1 the rules in-these matters. So we do not see any J ground to interfere with the order of the First'' Class Magistrate.

In the result the appeal is dismissed.