JUDGMENT : S. Acharya, J. - This is an appeal u/s 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, against the order of acquittal dated 23-10-1971 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 72/163 of 1971/70 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Puri. The accused, Respondent No. 1 in this appeal, had been convicted of an offence u/s 14 of the Bihar and Orissa Places of Pilgrimage Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as the ?Act?) by the trial Court, but the appellate Court acquitted the accused of the aforesaid offence. Hence this appeal. 2. The prosecution case in short is that the accused was the owner of the lodging house called ?Gopal Dham? in Baseli Sahi of Puri town. On 27-6-1961 : 1, p.w. 1, the Sanitary-cum-Health Inspector of the Lodging House Committee of Puri, visited the accused?s said house along with p.ws. 2 and 3 and found that the accused had accommodated in the said house 44 pilgrims in different batches belonging to 24-Praganas of West Bengal. At that time p.w. 1 also found that the accused received certain sums of money from the pilgrims for their boarding and lodging in that house and for offering Shag to Lord Jagannath. As the accused had accommodated pilgrims in the said house without a valid licence and received money from them for their boarding and lodging, p.w. 1 after obtaining the required sanction for the prosecution filed this case against the accused u/s 14 of the Act. 3. The accused did not deny that he was the owner of the said house. But he contended that he did not accommodate any pilgrim for gain in that house and at that time it was a dilapidated house. 4. The prosecution examined 3 witnesses. No defence evidence was adduced in this case. 5. The trial Court found that the accused, without a valid licence accommodated 44 pilgrims in his above-named lodging house on 27-6-1968, and realized money from them for their boarding and lodging in that house and also for other purposes. As the accused accommodated pilgrims in that house for gain without a licence he was convicted u/s 14 of the Act and was sentenced thereunder to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to undergo R.I. for 10 days. 6. As the accused accommodated pilgrims in that house for gain without a licence he was convicted u/s 14 of the Act and was sentenced thereunder to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to undergo R.I. for 10 days. 6. The appellate Court on a fresh reappraisal of the evidence on record arrived at the finding that the accused had accommodated 44 pilgrims in his lodging house for gain without a licence on the date on which p.w. 1 visited that house. But it acquitted the accused solely and mainly on the basis of its own finding that the Sub-divisional Magistrate took cognizance of this case upon information received by him from the report sent to? him by the Magistrate empowered under the Act, and that being so, the Sub-divisional Magistrate took cognizance of the case as per Section 190(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and so he could not have tried the case himself without informing the accused that he was entitled to have the case tried by any other Court, as provided u/s 191, Code of Criminal Procedure. Proceeding on that basis the leased appellate Judge held that as the Subdivisional Magistrate did not follow the mandatory provisions at Section 191, Code of Criminal Procedure, the trial of the case was vitiated and hence the order of conviction passed by the Subdivisional Magistrate could not be maintained. 7. The finding of the appellate Court that the trial Court took cognizance of the case u/s 190(c), Code of Criminal Procedure is absolutely incorrect. The complaint petition filed in this case shows that p.w. 1 was the complainant in this case. The said complaint petition has been addressed to the Sub-divisional Magistrate (Judicial), Puri. In the very first sentence in the said complaint petition it is stated that the said report was made to the Sub-divisional Magistrate for favour of his taking necessary action in the matter. Column 11 of the complaint petition shows that the prosecution report was made u/s 14 of the Act. In columns 1 to 5 of the said petition the name of the accused, his age, address and other details of his identity have been stated; in column 10 a brief description of the allegation against the accused has been stated; the names of witnesses have been mentioned in column 9. In columns 1 to 5 of the said petition the name of the accused, his age, address and other details of his identity have been stated; in column 10 a brief description of the allegation against the accused has been stated; the names of witnesses have been mentioned in column 9. Accordingly, the complaint petition which was forwarded by the Magistrate empowered under the Act to the Subdivisional Magistrate was for all intents and purposes ?a complaint? as defined u/s 4(1)(h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That complaint petition, addressed to the Subdivisional Magistrate, Puri, after being written out by the complainant, p.w. 1, was of course routed through the Health Officer, Puri Municipality and also through the Magistrate empowered under the Act. The Health Officer. Puri Municipality, recommended prosecution of the accused in column 16 thereof, and the Magistrate empowered under the Act merely forwarded that complaint petition to the Subdivisional Magistrate (Judicial), Puri. The Subdivisional Magistrate on receipt of the said complaint petition took cognizance of the case and summoned the accused to stand his trial in this case. As the complaint was made by the Sanitary-cum-Health Inspector, Lording House Fund, Puri, who undisputedly was a public servant and made that complaint while acting or purporting to act in due discharge of his official duties, it was not necessary for the Subdivisional Magistrate, PURI to examine the complainant before taking cognizance of the case as provided u/s 200(aa), Code of Criminal Procedure. Merely because the said complaint petition, addressed to the Subdivisional Magistrate (Judicial), Puri, was routed through the Health Officer and the Magistrate empowered under the Act, it cannot be said that the learned Subdivisional Magistrate took cognizance of the case upon information received by him from an ordinary report sent to him by the above mentioned Magistrate and hence cognizance was taken u/s 190(c), Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellate Court?s finding that there is nothing in the aforesaid petition requesting the Court to take legal action against the accused, is also factually? incorrect. As mentioned above, in the very first sentence of that petition it is stated that the said report was submitted to the Sub-divisional Magistrate (Judicial), Puri so that necessary action in the matter would be taken by that Court. incorrect. As mentioned above, in the very first sentence of that petition it is stated that the said report was submitted to the Sub-divisional Magistrate (Judicial), Puri so that necessary action in the matter would be taken by that Court. The section (Section 14) under which prosecution was to be launched and other necessary details for the same, as stated earlier, have all been furnished in that petition. On the above considerations I am satisfied that the appellate Court?s finding, that the Sub-divisional Magistrate took cognizance of the matter u/s 190(c) and consequently on the noncompliance of the provisions of Section 191, Code of Criminal Procedure the trial of the case was vitiated, is incorrect. Accordingly, the order of acquittal, passed solely on the above incorrect finding and basis, has to be set aside. 8. Mr. Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the Respondents, contended that if the order of acquittal on the ground passed by the appellate Court was not maintained, on the evidence on record the accused could not be held guilty for the offence alleged against him. Mr. Mohanty, in support of his above contention, at first urged that on the prosecution evidence it was not certain as to in which particular house the accused accommodated the pilgrims in question. I do not see any weight in the above-mentioned contention. In column 8 of the complaint petition it is stated that the place of occurrence was on Holding No. 307 of Baseli Sahi of Puri town. The complainant (p.w. 1) in his examination-in-chief stated that on 27-6-1968 at 10-30 A.M. he inspected the lodging house of the accused on Holding No. 307 in Baseli Sahi and found therein 44 pilgrims. P.w. 1, however, at a later stage of his deposition stated that the previous Holding number on which that house stood was 294 and later on that Holding number was changed to 304. Again towards the end of his cross-examination he stated that Holding No. 294 was later on changed to 304. Because of above statements Mr. Mohanty urged that the prosecution was not sure as to whether this case was started in respect of the house standing on Holding No. 307 or on Holding No. 304. P.w. 1 in his deposition has stated that in respect of the lodging house on Holding no 294, temporary licence under the Act for 20 pilgrims was issued in 1959. Mohanty urged that the prosecution was not sure as to whether this case was started in respect of the house standing on Holding No. 307 or on Holding No. 304. P.w. 1 in his deposition has stated that in respect of the lodging house on Holding no 294, temporary licence under the Act for 20 pilgrims was issued in 1959. P.w. 1 has proved Ext. 1, the counterfoil of the said licence, which shows that the lodging house on old Holding No. 294 was named ?Gopal Dham? and the said licence was valid only upto 7-8-1959. The accused has nowhere stated that the lodging house in respect of which this prosecution was launched did not belong to him. No suggestion even was made to any of the prosecution witnesses that the lodging house, in which p.ws. 1 and 2 detected that 44 pilgrims had been accommodated and the accused received money from them, did not belong to him. On a perusal of the entire evidence and materials on record I am satisfied that p.w. 1?s later reference to 304 in the above-mentioned manner has cropped up due to an inadvertent mistake, either in the recording of the deposition or may be due to a slip of tongue of p.w. 1. Mr. Mohanty?s submission based on the above-mentioned mistake, therefore, does not merit any serious consideration. 9. Mr. Mohanty next urged that in view of the discrepancy appearing in the prosecution evidence regarding the amount of money allegedly received by the accused from the pilgrims in question, the prosecution case should be branded as a false concoction. Mr. Mohanty was encouraged to make the said submission as p.w. 1 has stated that one batch of pilgrims paid Rs. 17.75 Paise and another batch paid Rs. 52.50 Paise to the accused for lodging, boarding and Darshan, whereas p.w. 3 has stated that one batch paid R.s. 16.50 Paise and two other batches paid Rs. 25/- each (in all Rs. 50/-), for Atika. The above discrepancy is not of such a vital nature as would completely render them unreliable or their evidence as untrue. It is just possible that payment of Rs. 1.25 Paise by the first batch of pilgrims and Rs. 2 50 Paise in all by the other two batches were not noticed by p.w. 3. 50/-), for Atika. The above discrepancy is not of such a vital nature as would completely render them unreliable or their evidence as untrue. It is just possible that payment of Rs. 1.25 Paise by the first batch of pilgrims and Rs. 2 50 Paise in all by the other two batches were not noticed by p.w. 3. It is well known that payment of money for such purposes are generally made by bits and in several instalments, and in that process of payment by different persons in different groups it is just possible that p.w. 3 could not notice the payment of the aforesaid small amounts of money. I do not attach any weight to the above-mentioned contention of Mr. Mohanty. 10. It was next urged by Mr. Mohanty that on the prosecution evidence it was not established that the money, if at all paid by the pilgrims to the accused, was for their accommodation in the said lodging house or for any other purpose of gain for the accused. I do not see any substance in this contention also. P.ws. 1, 2 and 3 have very categorically stated that the pilgrims paid the above-mentioned amounts of money to the accused for their lodging, boarding and Darshan. However, p.w. 2 in his cross-examination stated that the Jatris did not pay any money to the accused for "Atika" and p.w. 3 stated that the Jatris paid the above-mentioned money for "Atika". A perusal of their evidence clearly shows that the said discrepancy in their evidence is due to the different way they understood the word "Atika". P.w. 2, while stating that the Jatris did not pay any amount for "Atika", stated in the same strain that the money paid by them to the accused was for lodging, boarding and Darshan and p.w. 3 stated that the above amounts were paid for" Atika" but according to him the word "Atika" includes house rent, food and other expenses. Thus there is no discrepancy in their evidence about the purpose for which the money was, paid. In Banamali Mohapatra?s case 1972 (1) C.W.R. 939, it has been stated that it is well known and it was conceded by the counsel appearing for the Petitioner in that case that a portion of the money taken towards Atika goes to the benefit of the person who accepts that money. In Banamali Mohapatra?s case 1972 (1) C.W.R. 939, it has been stated that it is well known and it was conceded by the counsel appearing for the Petitioner in that case that a portion of the money taken towards Atika goes to the benefit of the person who accepts that money. That being so, if the money was paid to the accused by the Jatris only for Atika as stated by p.w. 3, a portion of that money has certainly gone to the benefit and for the gain of the accused. On the evidence on record, therefore, it is established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused accepted some money from the above mentioned pilgrims for his own benefit and gain. 11. Thus in this case it is established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused accommodate pilgrims in his house, which was inspected by p.ws. 1 and 2 on 27-6-1968, without a valid licence, and on that account received money from them for his own benefit and gain. Accordingly he violated the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, and is liable to be penalised u/s 14 of the Act. 12. On the above considerations, the order of acquittal is set aside, and the accused, Respondent No. 1 in this appeal, is held guilty of an offence u/s 14 of the Act and is sentenced thereunder to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to undergo Section 1. for 10 days. 13. The appeal accordingly is allowed. Final Result : Allowed