JUDGMENT Yorke, J. - This is an application in revision asking this Court to quash certain proceedings before a Magistrate entertained by him on a complaint made by an election Court. A similar application had been made to the Sessions Judge of Aligarh but was rejected by him. 2. The facts are as follows: There was a contested election for one of the wards in the Aligarh municipality. The present applicant Har Prasad was one candidate, while the other was Ram Lal. It is stated that Har Prasad was elected and thereupon the unsuccessful candidate filed an election petition which came for hearing before the Commissioner of the Agra Division, Mr. Pedley, who was invested with the powers of an election Court u/s 24 (1) of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916, Tha learned Commissioner allowed the petition and set aside the election of the applicant Har Prasad and declared a casual vacancy. Ha also declared Har Prasad incapable of being elected for a period of five years. 3. In the course of the election petition, Ram Lal made an application to the Commissioner stating that on inspection of the record it appeared that Har Prasad had fabricated or abetted the fabrication of false evidence by the substitution of forged signature slips for the original and genuine slips. The Commissioner Mr. Pedley was satisfied that there was ground for inquiry into this complaint and he framed a complaint which purported to be a complaint u/s 476, Criminal Procedure to the effect that the Respondent Har Prasad did during the month of January and on one or more of the following dates, the 9th, 11th, 26th and 27th or on February 1st, 1945 at Aligarn himself fabricate or abet the fabrication of false evidence by the substitution of forged for one or more genuine signature Slips relating to voters Nos. 986, 1203, 332, 1641, 566,1616, 2258. 1145 and 1026 among the election papers of Ward No. V, Non-Muslim Aligarh. This complaint he forwarded along with the complete Judicial record of the election petition case to the District Magistrate, Aligarh, for disposal by himself or by a com Detent Magistrate deputed by him according to law. The District Magistrate made the case over to Mr H. A. Kidwai, Magistrate first class, for disposal: This was on the 16th April 1945. This complaint he forwarded along with the complete Judicial record of the election petition case to the District Magistrate, Aligarh, for disposal by himself or by a com Detent Magistrate deputed by him according to law. The District Magistrate made the case over to Mr H. A. Kidwai, Magistrate first class, for disposal: This was on the 16th April 1945. On the 31st May 1945 an application was made in the Court of the Magistrate to the effect that the Commissioner, as Election Judge was neither a civil,.revenue nor a criminal Court and as such was not competent to make any complaint for offences referred to in Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate had treated or was prepared to treat the complaint as one of offences under Sections 466 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate disallowed this application and was prepared to proceed with the bearing of the case when a fresh application was made on the 24th September 1945 to the Sessions Judge. In that Court it was contended, first of all, that the Election Judge was not authorised to proceed u/s 476 and a complaint made by him u/s 195 (1) was accordingly incompetent ultra vires etc., and that therefore the lower Court, that is the Magistrate, had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It was further contended that the magistrate was not empowered to go Behind the terms of the complaint filed by the Commissioner, that is the Election Judge, u/s 476 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure read with Section 195. These, I suppose, were in the nature of alternative pleas The learned Sessions Judge, after some discussion of the legal position, held that the Election Judge was not empowered to file a complaint u/s 476 read with Section 195) but that the complaint in question could be maintained by the magistrrate u/s 190 as if made by a competent Court as provided in Section 195 I am not absolutely clear what he meant by this expression of opinion. In the result, he dismissed the application and hence this persent application in this Court. 4. In the result, he dismissed the application and hence this persent application in this Court. 4. It is contended, and I think with force, that the Commissioner of the Aligarh Division, sitting is an Election Judge under the provisions of the Municipalities Act, was not a Court within the meaning of Sections 476 and 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. These two sections, which are in a sense Interconnected, speak of Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court (vide Section 476 (1) and Section 195 (2) and it certainly appears to me that an Election Judge cannot be brought within the ambit of the term "Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court." It follows that the complaint made by the Commissioner as Election Judge was not one which he entertained by the magistrate u/s 195 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. The only other provision which could apply is Section 190. Section 190 (1) provides as follows: Except as hereinafter provided, any Presidency Magistrate, District Magistrate, or sub-divisional Magistrate and any other Magistrate, specially empowered in this behalf may take cognizance of any offence- (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence. 6. It is contended that the complaint sent by Mr. Pedley as Election Judge to the District Magistrate of Aligarh could not be treated as a complaint u/s 190 (1) (a), and the apparent two bases of this argument are, first, that Mr. Pedley was sitting as a Court and a complaint u/s 190 (1) (a) made by a private person, secondly, that in the case of a complaint made by a private person, the complainant is liable, if the accused is acquitted, to a suit for malicious prosecution and obviously a complaint of this kind would with difficulty be used as the foundation for such a civil action. In my judgment, there is no real force in either of these contentions. If the contentions are Sound, a person who commits perjury or any other offence before an election Court must go off scot free unless the opposite party is prepared to institute a private complaint u/s 193 of the Indian Penal Code. In my judgment, there is no real force in either of these contentions. If the contentions are Sound, a person who commits perjury or any other offence before an election Court must go off scot free unless the opposite party is prepared to institute a private complaint u/s 193 of the Indian Penal Code. But I do not see why an Election Judge should be debarred from making such a complaint even though the complaint is to be treated as not made by a Court but as made only by the presiding officer of the Court u/s 190. Moreover, there is nothing in Section 190 of the Code, unless it be the words "Except as hereinafter provided" which lays it down that a complaint of facts must be a private complaint in the sense of being made by a private person and not someone presiding over a Court of a kind which does not come within the scope of Sections 476 and 195. That view was taken by my brother Allsop in Ch. Tara Singh v. Emperor1, when it was held that: there was nothing in Section 190 to prevent a sub-divisional Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence that happened to be reported to him by a Civil judge or an officer who presides in a Court of justice. It was also stated that the Civil Judge being a complainant it is not necessary that he should be examined before the Magistrate who takes cognizance of the complaint (vide Section 200 (aa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure) However, even if he ought to be examined and is not examined, that would amount to an irregularity which would not vitiate the whole trial. 7. In my judgment the principle of this decision is clearly applicable and the Magistrate was perfectly competent to entertain this complaint under the provisions of Section 190 (1) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The words "Except as hereinafter provided ' do not affect the case because there is nothing in the succeeding sections which prevents an Election Judge from being treated as a private person. 8. As regards the sections under which the Magistrate trying the case may chose to frame charges against the applicant, that is a matter entirely in his discretion. The words "Except as hereinafter provided ' do not affect the case because there is nothing in the succeeding sections which prevents an Election Judge from being treated as a private person. 8. As regards the sections under which the Magistrate trying the case may chose to frame charges against the applicant, that is a matter entirely in his discretion. It is always open to a Court before which a complaint is lodged in which only one or two sections are named to frame a charge under a third or fourth section if in his opinion the facts proved establish a charge under a different section or sections from those named in the original complaint. 9. I find no force in this application and dismiiss it accordingly.