JUDGMENT : KNOX, J. This is an application in revision alleging that the first court did not act under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure inasmuch as no complainant was examined under that section, and if it acted under section 190 clause (c) then the trial of the petitioners was bad in law, in that the court failed to observe the procedure laid down by section 191 of the Code. 2. It appears that in the present case the Magistrate, who tried the accused, received a paper by post to the effect that an offence had been committed by certain chaukidars. The Magistrate, then and there, sent the paper to the police for enquiry. The result of the enquiry appears to have first gone to the Superintendent of police who suggested the prosecution of the accused and sent the report to the Magistrate. The Magistrate then took action, presumably under section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The contention is that the Magistrate, when he sent the papers to the police for enquiry, took cognizance and acted upon section 190 clause (c). Had he done so, there is no doubt that before taking evidence in the case he should, under section 191, have informed the accused that he was entitled to have the case tried by another court. It is quite conceivable that upon the police report reaching him the Magistrate might have refused to take action, or in other words declined to take congnizance of the offence. I see no reason nor any authority for limiting the “police report” to the report mentioned in section 170 and the preceding section of the Code. Indeed section 155 shows that police officers are empowered to investigate a non-congnizable case provided they act under the orders of a Magistrate having power to try such a case, and as a natural consequence they can send in a report in such a case under section 173. The presumption is that in this case the action taken by the Magistrate was based upon the police report. It is true that in the judgment the Magistrate does speak of an investigation under section 202. But section 202 has reference only to cases of which cognizance is taken upon a complaint and after the examination of a complainant. The presumption is that in this case the action taken by the Magistrate was based upon the police report. It is true that in the judgment the Magistrate does speak of an investigation under section 202. But section 202 has reference only to cases of which cognizance is taken upon a complaint and after the examination of a complainant. The object of the Code appears to be that before proceedings are taken against an accused person, such as would bring him to a court of justice, a Magistrate must have before him knowledge, independent of his own knowledge, based either upon a complaint or upon a police report. If he chooses to take action without such independent report he is bound to inform an accused that he is entitled to have the case tried by some court other than the court of such Magistrate. I reject the application.