JUDGMENT D. P. Uniyal, J. - This reference has been made by the III Temporary Sessions Judge, Allahabad recommending that the conviction of the applicant under Sec. 182 of the Indian Penal Code be set aside. 2. The applicant lodged a report on 25-1-1964 at police station Kotwali, Allahabad against one Babu Lal and others under Sec. 395, I. P. C. Since the offence was alleged to have been committed within the police circle Sarai Inayat, the Kotwali police sent the case for investigation to that police Station. As a result of the investigation conducted by Sub-Inspector Sri Sunahari Lal Sharma of Police Station Sarai Inayat, the report lodged by the applicant was found to be false. The Sub-Inspector of police station Sarai Inayat thereupon filed a complaint for the prosecution of the applicant under Sec. 182, I. P. C. and the same was taken cognizance of by the Magistrate under Sec. 195(a) of Criminal Procedure Code. 3. The Magistrate convicted the applicant and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 60/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one month. The applicant thereupon filed a revision before the Sessions Judge who has made the above reference to this Court. It was contended that no valid complaint could have been instituted by the Sub-Inspector of police station Sarai Inayat inasmuch as the report lodged by the applicant which was subsequently found to be false had been made at the police station Kotwali. The argument was that the Station Officer P. S. Kotwali was alone competent to make the complaint under Sec. 182, I. P. C. against the applicant and not the Sub-Inspector of police station Sarai Inayat, because according to the prosecution the applicant had furnished false information to the Station Officer Kotwali and not to the Sub-Inspector P. S. Inayat and that the moment a false report by the applicant came to be made at the police station Kotwali an offence under Sec 182, I. P. C. was complete. In the very nature of things the intention in making the false report at the P. S. Kotwali was to cause that public servant (Station Officer Kotwali) to do or omit to do something which he ought not to have done if the true facts of the case respecting which such information was given had been known to him. 4. In the very nature of things the intention in making the false report at the P. S. Kotwali was to cause that public servant (Station Officer Kotwali) to do or omit to do something which he ought not to have done if the true facts of the case respecting which such information was given had been known to him. 4. Sec. 195(1) (a) provides for cognizance of any offence punishable kinder Secs. 172 to 188 of the Indian Penal Code, on a complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is subordinate. 5. In the instant case the public servant concerned was the Station Officer Kotwali and a false report had been made to him by the applicant, therefore he and he alone was competent to make a complaint for the prosecution of the applicant under Sec. 192. I. P. C. 6. It has been held by the various High Courts including our own High Court that if a complaint is made at a Police Station, that an offence is said to have been committed in another police station the public servant concerned within the meaning of Sec. 195(1) (a), Cr. P. C. would be the person to who in the complaint had been made and not the police officer in whose jurisdiction the offence was committed: - 7. Ram Narain v. State, 1952 Cr. LJ 835; Sudarsan Barhambhat, A.I.R. 1947 Patna 64, Bacha Lal v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1936 Patna 56; State v. Bala Prasad, AIR 195; Rajasthan 142 ; Ovvappa Kone v. Chidambram Chettiar, A.I.R. 1941 Mad. 764 and Pasupati Benerji v. The King, AIR 1950 Calcutta 97. 8. The same view has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1962 SC 1206. It must therefore be held that the proceeding initiated in this case were wholly without jurisdiction. 9. I therefore accept this reference, quash the conviction and acquit him of the charge under Sec. 182, I. P. C.