ORDER T.P. Naik, J. The Station Officer, Dindori, filed a complaint u/s 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the non-applicants-accused Mooratsingh and Ransar along with two others in the Court of the Magistrate, First Class, Dindori, on the allegation that they had on 2-12-1961 assaulted one Narbada Prasad while he was returning from the river Narmada after taking a bath, causing to him wimple injuries. The trial Court convicted the accused-non-applicants u/s 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to simple imprisonment for a period of one month together with a fine of Rs. 75 or, in default of payment of the fine, simple imprisonment for a period of one month more, each. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandla, acquitted the accused-non-applicants solely on the ground that as the offence u/s 323 of the Indian Penal Code was cognizable by a Court of Nyaya Panchayat, it alone had the exclusive jurisdiction to try the accused and the Magistrate, First Class, Dindori, had no jurisdiction to try them. Reliance was also placed on a decision of Golvalker J. reported in State v. Mehtar Bisau Lodhi and another 1961 M P L J 1019.. Narbada Prasad has, therefore, come up in revision. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the accused-non-applicants were exclusively triable by a Nyaya Panchayat Court under the circumstances of the case. Under section 68 of the Central Provinces and Berar Panchayats Act, 11)46 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), a Nyaya Panchayat shall have jurisdiction concurrent with that of the criminal Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the Nyaya Panchayat is situate for the trial of offences under the Act and of such other offences as are specified in the Schedule. The offence u/s 323 of the Indian Penal Code is an offence specified in the Schedule and that consequently subject to the other provisions of the Act, the Nyaya Panchayat Court and the ordinary criminal Court within whose jurisdiction the Nyaya Panchayat was situate had concurrent jurisdiction to try the accused in respect of the offence in question. The offence u/s 323 of the Indian Penal Code is an offence specified in the Schedule and that consequently subject to the other provisions of the Act, the Nyaya Panchayat Court and the ordinary criminal Court within whose jurisdiction the Nyaya Panchayat was situate had concurrent jurisdiction to try the accused in respect of the offence in question. Under the first proviso to section 69 of the Act-- No Nyaya Panchayat shall take cognizance of any case relating to an offence under this Act or an offence specified in the Schedule in which either the complainant or the accused is- (a) a public servant, as defined in section 21 of the Indian Penal Code other than a kotwar or a village watchman or a jaglia or a village mahar. In the instant case, the complaint on the basis of which cognizance was taken by the Magistrate, First Class. Dindori, was filed by the Station Officer, Dindori, who was a public servant as defined in section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, the jurisdiction of the Nyaya Panchayat to take cognizance of this case was barred u/s 69 of the Act. It is, however, argued that this was not a case which could be initiated on a police report as it was in respect of a non-cognizable offence, and a police officer could not be a complainant of it within the meaning of the first proviso to section 69 of the Act. It is true that u/s 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate of the First or 8econd Class having power to try such case. But it does not necessarily follow from this that a report to a Magistrate by a police officer in respect of a non-cognizable offence investigated by him cannot fall into the category of 'a report in writing of such facts made by any police officer' within the meaning of section 190(1)(b) of the Code. The Supreme Court in Pravin Chandra Mody Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, . has pointed out that after the amendment of the Code in 1923. The Supreme Court in Pravin Chandra Mody Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, . has pointed out that after the amendment of the Code in 1923. the words now used in section 190(1)(b) are not technical as the words 'police report' were held to be and that they would include any report of a police officer, even though such a report might not fall u/s 173 of the Code. On this view, the Magistrate was quite competent to take cognizance of the offence on the report of the Station Officer, Dindori, even though he had no power to investigate it under the provisions of the Code. I need not, however, pursue the matter because it is immaterial whether the case falls u/s 190(1)(a) or 190(1)(b) of the Code. In either case, the Magistrate would have the right to take cognizance of the offence alleged in the report. In any case, I sec no reason why such a report is not a complaint as denned in section 4(1)(h) of the Code, in so far as it contains an allegation in writing to a Magistrate with a view to his taking action under the Code that the accused had committed an offence u/s 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate also appears to have treated the report as a complaint. He has thus proceeded to take cognizance of it as such, and tried it as a summons case. It is, however, submitted by the learned counsel for the non-applicants that a police officer could not be a complainant in a non-cognizable case within the meaning of section 09 of the Act. Under section 190(1)(a) of the Code, a Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance of any offence upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; and neither the Code nor any other law does specifically provide that a complaint of an offence u/s 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code shall be made by a person aggrieved and not by any other person. Under the circumstances, I see no justification for holding that a police officer, when making a complaint of an offence u/s 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, even though he was not the aggrieved party, was not a complainant within the meaning of the first proviso to section 69 of the Act. Under the circumstances, I see no justification for holding that a police officer, when making a complaint of an offence u/s 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, even though he was not the aggrieved party, was not a complainant within the meaning of the first proviso to section 69 of the Act. I am, therefore, of opinion that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was in error in holding that, under the circumstances of the case, the ease was cognizable by a Nyaya Panehayat alone, I may also add that as pointed out by Kekre J. in Phediya and others v. Mayaram Cri. Rev. No. 390 of 1961 decided on 24th April 1961.,- The jurisdiction of a Magistrate to enquire into even such offences as are covered by the Schedule to the Act, is not taken away. A Magistrate taking cognizance of offences mentioned in the Schedule to the Act would not be acting without jurisdiction. It could be that the Magistrate could direct the return of the complaint to the complainant to be presented before Nyaya Panehayat, if he finds that the offences disclosed after enquiry were covered by the Schedule to the Act, but if he decides to enquire into such offences, in the circumstances as obtained in the present case, I do not think that he would be acting without jurisdiction. He has further pointed out that the mandatory provisions of section 72 of the Act requiring a Magistrate to direct the complainant to present the complaint to a Nyaya Panehayat within whose jurisdiction the offence was committed relate to a stage before cognizance is taken of an offence by the Magistrate concerned and not to a stage after cognizance has been taken. In the instant case, no objection was taken to the Magistrate's taking cognizance of the offence u/s 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The objection was taken for the first time in the appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge after cognizance had been taken and a conviction recorded by the trial Court; and consequently the objection taken in the Court of Appeal cannot help the accused even if it were to be held that the Nyaya Panehayat Court had jurisdiction to try the offence in question because it cannot be said that the trial Court in taking cognizance of the offence and trying the accused was acting without jurisdiction. There is one other reason, also why the contention of the non-applicants-accused must fail. The complaint was of an offence u/s 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the provisions of sections 68 and 69 provide that the Nyaya Panchayat shall he competent to take cognizance of those offences which are mentioned in the Schedule to the Act together with the attempts or abetments thereof. They make no reference to those offences when punishable with the aid of section 34 or section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The omission appears to he deliberate and may probably have been prompted by the consideration that vicarious liability for offences is often a matter of difficulty and could well be left out of the jurisdiction of Nyaya Panchayats. The Nyaya Panchayats are thus not competent to take cognizance of offences u/s 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the view I have taken, I do not consider it necessary to examine the validity of the contention based on the decision of Golvalker J. in State v. Mehtar Bisau Lodhi and another (1) that so long a Nyaya Panchayat was functioning, the jurisdiction of criminal Courts under the Code of Criminal Procedure remained under suspension. It, however, does appear that the ratio of the decisions of Golvalker, J. in Mehtar's case (1) and of Kekre, J. in Phediya and others v. Mayaram (2) is somewhat conflicting, which shall have to be resolved on a suitable occasion. The revision is, therefore, allowed and the acquittal of the accused-non-applicants is hereby set aside. The case shall now go back to the learned Additional Sessions Judge for a re-hearing of the appeal on merits in accordance with law, in the light of the observations made above. Final Result : Allowed