Veluchamy Gounder vs Chinnaswamy and Others

Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.—The above S. Rs. have been preferred by P. W. 1, to be admitted as appeal u/s 417(3), Criminal P.C., against

the judgment of acquittal in C. C. 1992 of 1968 on the file of the Sub-Magistrate, Dindigul. The office felt a doubt whether those S. Rs. could be

admitted as appeal. Hence, they are posted before me fox orders.

The learned Counsel, Sri Santhanam, who filed these S. Rs. submitted that the report filed by the police officer on a direction given by the

Magistrate after taking cognisance of the private complaint filed u/s 190(1), Criminal P.C. must be deemed to be a report u/s 202, Criminal P.C.

and that, therefore, the acquittal of the respondent must be deemed to be on the private complaint filed by the complainant and hence the

provisions u/s 417(3), Criminal P.C. alone will apply and that these S. Rs. should be admitted as appeal.

It is necessary to note briefly as to what happened in the cage before the trial court, as seen from the records. P. W. 1 filed a private complaint

against the respondents u/s 379, I.P.C. before the Sub-Magistrate, Dindigul. The Sub-Magistrate, Dindigul, immediately examined P. W. 1 the

complainant on oath u/s 200, Criminal P.C. and thereafter, he referred the complaint to the police for investigation. The police took up investigation

u/s 156(3), Criminal P.C. and submitted a report u/s 173, Criminal P.C. Process was issued to the respondents after the report was submitted by

the police and the case proceeded on the police report and the copies of the statements of witnesses and other records were furnished to the

respondents u/s 173(4) Criminal P.C. They were ultimately acquitted.

Now the point is whether the acquittal was on a private complaint instituted by P. W. 1 or on the police report purported to have been

submitted u/s 173, Criminal P.C.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision in Jamuna Singh and Others Vs. Bhadai Sah, . The Supreme Court held, that if

once the Magistrate took cognisance of the case on a private complaint, if he subsequently directs the police to investigate, such an investigation

must be deemed to be only u/s 202, Criminal P.C. and not u/s 156(3), Criminal P.C. and the report submitted by the police on such investigation

can-not be deemed to be a report u/s 173, Criminal P.C. The Supreme Court further held that if the Magistrate after receiving the complaint,

makes up his mind to examine the complainant on oath u/s 200, Criminal P.C. and examines the complainant, he must be deemed to have taken

cognisance of the complaint. It is made clear in that decision that after taking the sworn statement of the complainant u/s 200, Criminal P.C. the

direction by the Magistrate is only u/s 202, Criminal P.C., and not u/s 156(3), Criminal P.C.

In this case, the records show that the Magistrate after receiving the complaint examined the complainant on oath u/s 200, Criminal P.C.

Therefore he had taken cognisance of the case u/s 190(1), Criminal P.C. on the private complaint filed by the complainant. The report submitted

by the police on a direction by the Magistrate is a report u/s 202, Criminal P.C. It must, therefore, be deemed that the acquittal of the respondents

was on the institution of private complaint and not on the police report. I am, therefore, of the view that these S, Rs. must be admitted as appeal.

Ordered accordingly.

The assistance rendered to court by Messrs. G. Gopalaswami and C. K. Venkatanarasaimham, advocates, as amicas curiae is recorded.