ORDER.- This petition is filed for revising the order of the District Magistrate, Madurai confirming the conviction of the petitioner under section 182, Indian Penal Code and sentence of fine of Rs. 50 passed on him. The petitioner sent through post a complaint against one Ramakrishnan, P.W.1. regarding the theft of his cycle to the Additional Sub-Inspector, Tirupparankundram. The complaint, Exhibit P-5 was received on 17th July, 1961, by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Tirupparankundram. He registered the case and transferred it to the Detective Sub-Inspector, P.W. 11 for investigation. P.W. 11 took up investigation and on enquiry found that the case was false and served a referred charge-sheet notice on the petitioner on 1st September, 1961. He obtained a report from P.W. 1 Ramakrishnan, against whom the petitioner gave the complaint of theft and registered a case under section 211, Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. He applied to the Sub-Magistrate praying for permission to investigate into the offence and obtained an order from him. Both the Courts have found that the petitioner gave information to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Tirupparankundram knowing that the information he was giving was false and intending that the public servant should cause annoyance to P.W. 1. The finding is a concurrent one and is not challenged by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Sri Venkatanarasimhan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner raised two questions of law. Firstly, he contended that the complaint given by the petitioner was received by P.W. 10 and therefore under section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code it is only "the public servant concerned" that may prefer a complaint. According to the learned Counsel, the public servant concerned in this case is P.W. 10 and the complaint given by P.W. 11 is not in accordance with law. P.W. 11 stated in his evidence that, after completing the investigation, himself and P.W. 10 laid the charge sheet. The charge-sheet is signed by both P. W. 10, the Additional Sub-Inspector of Police, and P.W. 11, the Sub-Inspector of Police, who investigated the offence and therefore this point does not arise. The second point the learned Counsel raised was that the alleged complaint preferred by P.Ws. 10 and 11 was only a charge-sheet and that under section 195, Criminal Procedure Code only a complaint should be filed by the public servant concerned and therefore the proceedings were illegal. The second point the learned Counsel raised was that the alleged complaint preferred by P.Ws. 10 and 11 was only a charge-sheet and that under section 195, Criminal Procedure Code only a complaint should be filed by the public servant concerned and therefore the proceedings were illegal. P.W. 11 obtained orders from the Sub-Magistrate for investigating into a non-cognizable offence and alter investigating it filed a charge-sheet. Section 195(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 of the Indian Penal Code except on a complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or some other public servant, to whom he is subordinate, The contention of the learned Counsel is that there is no provision for a Police Officer to file a charge-sheet under this section ; he can only file a complaint in writing as any other public servant. Reliance was placed on the definition of the word ‘complaint’ in section 4(1)(h) of the Criminal Procedure Code. “Complaint” is defined as meaning an allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under the Criminal Procedure Code that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but it does not include the report of a Police Officer. The definition having specifically excluded the report of a Police Officer, it is submitted that a report of a Police Officer cannot be taken as a complaint under section 195(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which defines various words and expressions, runs as follows: “In this code the following words and expressions have the following meanings, unless a different intention appears from the subject or context..................” From this section it is permissible to construe the “words and expressions” differently from the definition, if a different intention appears from the subject or context. Section 195(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code is intended as a safeguard against frivolous prosecution regarding offences of contempt of lawful authority of public servants. The law provides a safeguard that no Court shall take cognizance unless there is a complaint in writing by the public servants concerned. It is therefore necessary that the public servant concerned should exercise his mind and satisfy himself and then prefer a complaint in writing. The law provides a safeguard that no Court shall take cognizance unless there is a complaint in writing by the public servants concerned. It is therefore necessary that the public servant concerned should exercise his mind and satisfy himself and then prefer a complaint in writing. This section deals with the complaint of all public servants in general. There is no separate provision for Police Officers. Where an offence against a public servant is committed under Chapter 10 the procedure for prosecuting in a Court of law is by preferring a complaint as required under section 195(1), Criminal Procedure Code. There is considerable divergence of opinion between several High Courts as to whether a report of the Police Officer in a non-cognizable case can be considered as a complaint under the Criminal Procedure Code. In Mallikarjuna Prasad Rao v. Emperor1, Burn, J., held that the report of a Police Officer in a non-cognizable offence could not be considered to be a Police Report. To construe otherwise, according to the learned Judge, would lead to the absurd conclusion that no Police Officer can ever make a complaint. The view of the learned Judge was referred to and approved by a Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Public Prosecutor v. A. V. Ramiah2, which held that when a Police Officer investigated a non-cognizable offence without the order of the Magistrate and filed a charge-sheet it should nonetheless be treated as a complaint and not as a Police Report. The Court cited with approval the observations of Burn, J. In Mallikarjuna Prasada Rao v. Emperor1, referred to above. The decision of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Public Prosecutor v. Ratnavelu Chetti3, has not been referred in Mallikarjuna Prasad Rao v. Emperor1, or Public Prosecutor v. A. V. Ramiah2. The Full Bench in Public Prosecutor v. Ratnavelu Chetty3, was in favour of the view that a report referred to in section 190 (1)(b) would also include a report in a non-cognizable offence by a Police Officer. The case cited above refers to a report filed by a Police Officer of a non-cognizable offence without obtaining the directions of the Magistrate. But in the present case the Police Officer obtained the directions from the Magistrate under section 155 (2) and purported to file a charge-sheet. The case cited above refers to a report filed by a Police Officer of a non-cognizable offence without obtaining the directions of the Magistrate. But in the present case the Police Officer obtained the directions from the Magistrate under section 155 (2) and purported to file a charge-sheet. The question that has to be considered is whether a report filed after investigation of a non-cognizable offence by a Police Officer after obtaining the permission of the Magistrate can still be regarded as a complaint under section 195(1), Criminal Procedure Code. In Barket and another v. Emperor4, Allsop, J., was of the view that the term ‘complaint ‘in section 195(1) (a) was not used in a technical sense, in which it was defined under section 4(1)(h) of the Code and that the intention in section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code was only that the Magistrate should not punish a person except at the instance of the public officer concerned or his superior. According to the definition, it would be possible for any person to obstruct a Police Officer in the execution of his duty without rendering himself liable to punishment under section 186, Indian Penal Code. The same view was taken in State v. Nandalal Karunashankar1. But this view was dissented from by a Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Sindhi Nathuram Atmaram v. State and another2, Wanchoo, C.J., speaking for the Court preferred the view of the Allahabad High Court in Lakhar v. Emperor3, and observed that the difficulty pointed out by Allsop, J., (by Burn, J. also in Mallikarjuna Prasad Rao v. Emperor4, that if strictly construed, a Police Officer could not have remedy if he was obstructed in the execution of his duty, could be got over by the Police Officer making a complaint. In Public Prosecutor v. Ratnavelu Chetti5, a Police Officer filed a Police report in a non-cognizable offence without obtaining the permission of the Magistrate under section 155, Criminal Procedure Code. The Full Bench took the view that it could be taken cognizance of by the Magistrate as a complaint, and under section 200 (aa), Criminal Procedure Code the Magistrate need not examine him on oath. The present case is different in that the Police Officer obtained orders from the Magistrate under section 155, Criminal Procedure Code for investigating a non-cognizable offence. The present case is different in that the Police Officer obtained orders from the Magistrate under section 155, Criminal Procedure Code for investigating a non-cognizable offence. A recent decision of a Bench of this Court in State G.S. S. I. v. Ramaswami6, may now be considered. In that case one P. Ramaswami published in his paper certain objectionable articles, which amounted to an offence under section 295-A, Indian Penal Code. The Government, according to the requirements of section 196, Criminal Procedure Code ordered that a complaint be made against the aforesaid Ramaswami in respect of the offence punishable under section 295-A, Indian Penal Code and directed the Commissioner of Police to depute a suitable officer to make the complaint. The Commissioner issued proceedings authorising Sri J.N. Ranjitham, Sub-Inspector of Police, to register a case and investigate it. As the Commissioner is a Magistrate, it was taken that the directions to investigate a non-congizable offence was issued by him by virtue of the powers as a Presidency Magistrate. Acting on the above directions the Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case, prepared the usual F.I.R. and recorded the statements of witnesses under section 162 (2), Criminal Procedure Code but at the conclusion of the investigation he did not file a charge-sheet, in the form prescribed under section 173 (a) of the Criminal Procedure Code. According to the proceedings by the Commissioner of Police he preferred a complaint. The Magistrate took the case on file and construed it as a case instituted on a Police Report and proceeded under section 251-A of the Criminal Procedure Code and framed a charge against the accused. At that stage the Magistrate entertained some doubts and referred the following two points to the High Court for its opinion: "1. Whether the so-called complaint submitted by the Sub-Inspector is a complaint within the meaning of section 4(1)(A) of the Criminal Procedure Code, or a Police Report forwarded under section 173(1), Criminal Procedure Code and what is the procedure to be adopted on the complaint Submitted by Sri Ranjitham in this case. 2. Whether the so-called complaint submitted by the Sub-Inspector is a complaint within the meaning of section 4(1)(A) of the Criminal Procedure Code, or a Police Report forwarded under section 173(1), Criminal Procedure Code and what is the procedure to be adopted on the complaint Submitted by Sri Ranjitham in this case. 2. Whether the order of the Commissioner of Police directing the Sub-Inspector to register and investigate the case and the subsequent investigation done by the Sub-Inspector are null and void, and if so, whether this Court can take cognizance of the complaint on the report submitted by the Sub-Inspector as a result of that investigation." In answering the above two questions the Bench observed: "The essential question for consideration which arises in this case is whether merely because the officer whom the State Government authorised to make the complaint happened to be the Commissioner of Police and he in turn, conferred authority on a Sub-Inspector of Police to file the actual complaint, the complaint falls within the scope of section 190(1)(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code which refers to a report in writing of such facts made by any Police Officer.........But in regard to the complaint to be filed under the authority of the Government under section 196-A of the Criminal Procedure Code on prior investigation by a Police Officer and no formal report as prescribed under section 173, Criminal Procedure Code are necessary. The very fact that the Government authorised a particular officer to make a complaint to the Court, presupposes the completion of a preliminary investigation on the basis of which the Government were satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out. Therefore the complaint filed after an authorisation by the State Government under section 196, Criminal Procedure Code should be treated as a complaint within the meaning of section 190 (1) (a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, on which the Magistrate can take cognizance. Therefore the complaint filed after an authorisation by the State Government under section 196, Criminal Procedure Code should be treated as a complaint within the meaning of section 190 (1) (a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, on which the Magistrate can take cognizance. That in a particular case it happens that a Police Officer was authorised by the State Government to make the complaint should not, in our opinion make any difference in regard to the applicability of section 190 (1) (a) to such a The Bench proceeded to observe: “It will be unreasonable to classify such complaints further into two categories, one under section 190(1)(a) and the other under section 190(1)(b) based merely on the circumstances whether the person making the complaints is a Police Officer or not. The generality of the scope of section 196 precludes any such differentiation.” In conclusion the Bench observed that the investigation made by the Sub-Inspector under the orders of the Commissioner of Police, in that case could at best be treated as a proceeding not strictly relevant for the purpose of the statutory complaint filed under section 196 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Bench further observed: “That such an enquiry or investigation which was not strictly relevant happened to intervene before the actual filing of the complaint will not, in our opinion, alter the nature of the complaint for the purpose of taking cognizance by the Magistrate under section 190(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code.” The decision is authority for the proposition that in case where an investigation is not strictly relevant for the purpose of statutory complaint, and in such a case if there was an investigation before the filing of the complaint, the nature of the complaint for the purpose of talcing of the cognizance by the Magistrate will not be affected. In the present case it was unnecessary for the Sub-Inspector of Police to have investigated the non-cognizable offence on the orders of the Magistrate, for while investigating the theft case, he was in possession of the full facts of the case. According to the above decision, the intervening investigation, which is not strictly relevant, could not be held to alter the nature of the complaint. That the Sub-Inspector of Police called his report a charge-sheet and filed it in the form prescribed will not make any difference. According to the above decision, the intervening investigation, which is not strictly relevant, could not be held to alter the nature of the complaint. That the Sub-Inspector of Police called his report a charge-sheet and filed it in the form prescribed will not make any difference. It would be unreasonable to classify the complaints of public servants under section 195(1)(a) into complaints by public servants other than Police Officers and complaints by Police Officers and Police Reports by Police Officers and exclude Police Reports by Police Officers from the purview of the section. The scope of the section is that before the Court could take cognizance of an offence against a public servant, the public servant should himself prefer a complaint in writing. There is no justification for treating the Police Officer differently and excluding the complaint from the Police Officer which is preferred in the form of a Police Report. The context of section 195 clearly warrants the construction of the word complaint in section 105(1)(a) to include even report of the Police Officer, when this is made by the Police Officer concerned as a public servant with a view of taking action against a person. The contentions raised by the learned Counsel, therefore, fail and this petition is dismissed. V.K. ------------- Petition dismissed.