Judgment :- 1. This appeal is filed under S.417 Criminal Procedure Code against an order of acquittal passed by the Stationary 2nd Class Magistrate, Neyyattinkara. 2. The appellant's case was that the two respondents husband and wife who are the lessees of a property belonging to his sons committed theft of an enjili tree costing about Rs. 150/- from the property. The appellant also stated that he had to file the complaint as his sons were employed in Madras. Besides denying the act, the defence contended that the complainant was not competent to launch the prosecution as it was his sons and not he who had leased the property to them. 3. The learned Magistrate after discussing the prosecution evidence has rightly found that the accused had cut and removed the tree. However, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused as he was of the view that the father cannot assume the role of the prosecutor in this case since he is not proved to have sustained any wrongful loss. That the accused had cut and removed the tree and that those acts constitute the offence of theft is not disputed by the learned defence counsel. Hence the only question arising for determination in this appeal is whether a prosecution for theft can be launched by a person who is not directly interested in the property stolen or adversely affected by its loss. 4. It is clear that the learned Magistrate's finding on this point cannot be sustained. It is well-settled that as a general rule, any person having knowledge of the commission of an offence may set the law in motion by a complaint though he is not a person affected by the offence. This principle has been clearly enunciated by a bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in Prayag Singh v. Mrs. Morgan (reported in XXXIII Calcutta Law Journal 118). The case involved the offences of mischief and trespass. Repelling the contention that a complaint against an offence can be filed only by the person affected by it, the learned judges held: "As a general rule any person having knowledge of the commission of an offence may set the law in motion by a complaint even though he is not a person interested in or affected by the offence. Repelling the contention that a complaint against an offence can be filed only by the person affected by it, the learned judges held: "As a general rule any person having knowledge of the commission of an offence may set the law in motion by a complaint even though he is not a person interested in or affected by the offence. The exceptions to this rule of which S.195 to 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are examples, are exceptions created by statute; there is nothing in the Criminal Procedure Code to know an intention to confine prosecutions to the persons directly injured." 5. The same view was taken in a later case reported in AIR. 1922 Cal. 639 (Basirulla v. Asadulla). That was a case falling under S.426 and 323 I. P. C. where the mischief complained of was not committed with reference to the complainant but to his father who lived separately. The High Court characterised the order of acquittal as erroneous and set it aside observing that a complaint may be made by "any person who knows about the commission of an offence" and not necessarily by the injured party. In another case, where the conviction of the accused for mischief and trespass committed by entering upon a certain field which was in the possession of the complainant's tenants and destroying the seeds sown thereon, was challenged before the Bombay High Court on the ground that the complainant not being a person in possession, could not legally institute the complaint, it was held. "that the words 'any person in possession' in S.441 of the Indian Penal Code do not mean only 'a complainant in possession' there being no authority for taking the offence of mischief and criminal trespass out of the general rule which allows any person to complain of a criminal act." (Vide ILR. XXI Bombay 536, Imperatrix v. Keshavlal Jekrishna and others). The same view was taken by the Travancore High Court in a case involving the offence of theft (Vide XIV TLJ. 587 Gnanu Pillai Appavu Pillai v. Ali Ummal Malukummal.) 6. XXI Bombay 536, Imperatrix v. Keshavlal Jekrishna and others). The same view was taken by the Travancore High Court in a case involving the offence of theft (Vide XIV TLJ. 587 Gnanu Pillai Appavu Pillai v. Ali Ummal Malukummal.) 6. The general rule therefore, is that a complaint need not necessarily be made by the person injured, but may be filed by any person aware of the offence and the only exceptions to this rule are to be found in S.195 to 199 of the Criminal Procedure Code where certain offences are stated to be complainable only by specified persons. Needless to say, Courts have no power to add to the list. An offence under S.379 IPC. is definitely not one to which S.195 to 199 apply. Hence the view taken by the learned Magistrate that only the person to whom wrongful loss was caused by the theft can complain against it, is clearly wrong. 7. The order of acquittal is hence set aside and the respondents are convicted under S.379 IPC. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks. Allowed.