M. M. MIRDHE, J. ( 1 ) THIS Criminal Revision Petition is filed under S. 397, Cr. P. C. to set aside the order dated 11-6-1990 passed by the Munsiff and J. M. F. C. Byadgi, in P. C. No. 22 of 1990. ( 2 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader fully and perused the records of the case. ( 3 ) THE facts of the case leading to this Revision Petition are as follows: that the complainant along with the other accused in the case went to Byadgi Police Station on 29-5-1990 and requested the petitioner to release them on anticipatory bail as per the orders of the Sessions Court, Dharwar. But the petitioner did not accept the order of the Sessions Court on the ground that he was under orders of transfer. Accused 6 filed an affidavit. The Court below treated that affidavit as private complaint under S. 2 (d) of Cr. P. C. and took cognizance of the offence and recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and ordered for the issue of process against the petitioner for the offence under S. 166 read with S. 188, I. P. C. ( 4 ) THE first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Court could not have taken cognizance of the offence in the absence of any complaint made to it. There is no particular form of the complaint as such prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Code or any other law. As per the definition of complaint "contained" in S. 2 (d) of the Cr. P. C. any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under the Code to the effect that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence will amount to a complaint, but it does not include a police report. Even the affidavit filed to a Court can amount to a complaint if the allegations therein are made to a Magistrate about the commsion of an offence and with a view to his taking action. A perusal of the affidavit in this case goes to disclose that the person who has filed the affidavit has alleged that the petitioner did not obeying the order of the anticipatory bail passed by the Sessions Court, Dharwar. A perusal of the affidavit in this case goes to disclose that the person who has filed the affidavit has alleged that the petitioner did not obeying the order of the anticipatory bail passed by the Sessions Court, Dharwar. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no request in the affidavit to take any action. In the affidavit, it is mentioned as follows:- * Matter in vernacular omitted - Ed. This averment is wide enough to cover also a request on the part of the person filing the complaint to take suitable action in law. Therefore, the affidavit amounts to a complaint and the Court below was justified in taking cognizance of the offence disclosed from the affidavit which amounts to a complaint in this case. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner was under orders of transfer and under such circumstances if he has not released the complainant and the other accused on bail, it can not be said that he disobeyed the orders of the Sessions Court. What were the circumstances which led the P. S. I. not to accept the orders of the Sessions Court, Dharwar, is a matter of evidence. The petitioner will be having an opportunity to put forth his defence at the time of trial. This argument cannot be a basis for me to set aside the order of the court below issuing process against the petitioner for an offence under S. 166 read with S. 188, I. P. C. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that there is no list of witnesses appended to the affidavit filed by the respondent-1 in the Court below. He relied on Keshava Murthy v. Veeraiah, ILR 1987 Kant 2285 wherein his Lordship Justice Navadgi has held that the provision regarding giving the names of the witnesses in the complaint is mandatory and absulute compliance is necessary in the matter. If the names of the witnesses are mentioned in the body of the complaint, it will be sufficient compliance with the said mandatory provision of law. In this case, the complainant has mentioned in his affidavit that he along with the other accused has gone to the Police Station. If the names of the witnesses are mentioned in the body of the complaint, it will be sufficient compliance with the said mandatory provision of law. In this case, the complainant has mentioned in his affidavit that he along with the other accused has gone to the Police Station. In view of the petitioner himself giving the names of all the persons in the sworn statement and also mentioning in his complaint that he has gone to the Police Station along with other accused, the names of the witnesses can be ascertained and there is sufficient compliance with the mandatory provision of law in this regard. There are no grounds to interfere with the order of the lower court that is challenged in this Revision Petition. ( 8 ) HENCE. I make the following order:- the Revision Petition is dismissed. Revision dismissed. --- *** --- .