JUDGMENT.- The first question that arises for consideration in this appear preferred by the State is whether the First-Class Magistrate, Mahboobnagar, could acquit an accused person when a police officer had filed a charge-sheet or report. The respondents were the accused before the lower Court and they were present on 2nd March, 1965 and also on the earlier dates 16th February, 1965,1st February, 1965 and 18th January, 1965. The Police Sub-Inspector was not present on 1st February, 1965, and 16th February, 1965 and 2nd March, 1965. Therefore, the Magistrate felt that the police had no interest in the case and after hearing the arguments of the Advocate for the respondents and the Police Prosecuting Officer “dismissed the case” and acquitted the accused of an offence under section 341, Indian Penal Code. Mr. Jayachandra Reddi, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has argued that the Magistrate went wrong in acquitting the respondent when the Police Prosecuting Officer was present and that there is nothing to show from the order of the Magistrate that he had made the order under section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that the report or the charge-sheet filed by the Sub-Inspector is not a complaint within the meaning of section 4(1) (A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the Magistrate to exercise his jurisdiction under section 247 and therefore the order of the Magistrate is liable to be set aside. It is no doubt true as pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the Magistrate has not stated in his order under which section of the Criminal Procedure Code he was acquitting the accused. According to the learned Counsel for the respondents, the Magistrate has obviously exercised his jurisdiction under section 247, Criminal Procedure Code, as the Sub-Inspector the complainant was absent. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether what was laid by the Police Officer is a complaint within the meaning of section 4(1)(h) of the Criminal Procedure Code or whether it was the report of Police Officer Mr. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether what was laid by the Police Officer is a complaint within the meaning of section 4(1)(h) of the Criminal Procedure Code or whether it was the report of Police Officer Mr. Jayachandra Reddy, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has invited my attention to the charge-sheet filed in this case and argued that the charge-sheet cannot be brought within the ambit of section 4(1)(h) of the Criminal Pro:edure Code and if it is not a complaint then the Magistrate cannot invoke section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure It is also argued that the Sub-Inspector filed an affidavit stating the reasons for his absence and therefore it is a fit case for interference by this Court. It may now be necessary to look into the definition of complaint. Section 4 (1)(h) reads: "‘Complaint’ means the allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence but it does not include the report of a Police Officer." Dealing with this question whether the report of a Police Officer would come within the definition of section 4(1)(h) of the Criminal Procedure Code the Madras-High Court in Mallikharjund Prasada Rao v. Emperor1, held that "the report of the Police Officer in this case is a complaint as defined in section 4(1)(h), Criminal Procedure Code. It is only reports in cognizable cases that are excluded from that definition." The Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Public Prosecutor v. Ratnavelu Chetty2, dealing with the reports in writing in non-cognizable case; held that by virtue of sections 190(1)(b) and 200(aa) of the Criminal Procedure Code,. Magistrates mentioned in section 190 are entitled to take cognizance of even non-cognizable offences upon a report made in writing by a Police Officer without examining the officer on oath. "The contention of the Public Prosecutor is that when any Police Officer reports about a non-cognizable case, he reports as a Police Officer and therefore it must be considered to be a report. Such an argument, if upheld, would mean that a Police Officer can report about any offence, cognizable or otherwise. "The contention of the Public Prosecutor is that when any Police Officer reports about a non-cognizable case, he reports as a Police Officer and therefore it must be considered to be a report. Such an argument, if upheld, would mean that a Police Officer can report about any offence, cognizable or otherwise. Supposing a Police Officer reports about the commission of adultery or enticing away a married woman, though under section 199, the husband alone is competent to complain of such an offence, could it be said that the report is a proper report simply because the Police Officer came to know of the commission of the offence in his official capacity? The law requires that certain formalities should be gone through before criminal proceedings could be initiated. It would be doing violence to section 190 to hold that a Magistrate is entitled to initiate proceedings upon the report of a Police Officer as regards a non-cognizable offence (Vide page 526). A Division Bench of this Court in Public Prosecutor v. Ramiah3, dealing with the scope of section 4(1)(h) in a trial for the offence under section 12 of the Madras Gaming Act on the police report and the absence of the complainant Police Officer resulting in the acquittal under section 247 Criminal Procedure Code, held: “Section 13 of the Madras Gaming Act does not give an unrestricted power of arrest to a Police Officer but gives him only a limited power in that he can arrest with a warrant only if the offence is committed in his view but not otherwise. It follows that an offence under section 12 of the Gaming Act is not a cognizable offence within the meaning of section 4(1)(f), Criminal Procedure Code, and a Police officer cannot investigate into it without the order of a Magistrate as required by section 155(2), Criminal Procedure Code. But if the Police Officer does investigate into an offence under section 12 of the Gaming Act without the order of a Magistrate and files a charge-sheet, it is nonetheless to be treated as a complaint and not as a police report. The label put on it by the Sub-Inspector of Police is of no significance. Where, therefore, in such a case the Magistrate acquits the accused under section 247, Criminal Procedure Code, for the non-appearance of the complainant Sub-Inspector of Police, the order is perfectly legal and proper”. The label put on it by the Sub-Inspector of Police is of no significance. Where, therefore, in such a case the Magistrate acquits the accused under section 247, Criminal Procedure Code, for the non-appearance of the complainant Sub-Inspector of Police, the order is perfectly legal and proper”. Therefore, having regard to the principle laid down in the aforesaid decisions, there could be no doubt that the report laid by the Police Officer for a non-cognizable offence under section 341, is only a complaint within the meaning of section 4(1)(h) of the Criminal Procedure Code and that the Magistrate was entitled to act under section 247, Criminal Procedure Code. It should be remembered that he was absent not only on that date 2nd March, 1965 but also on two earlier occasions 1st February, 1965, 16th February, 1965 as may be seen from the extracts of the diary furnished to me. It cannot be said that the Magistrate has acted unreasonably in this matter. Even otherwise the provisions of section 247 are mandatory and the proviso to section is not material. It is imperative on the part of the Magistrate to acquit the accused unless proper reasons are shown for adjourning the hearing of the case. I am not satisfied that the reasons given in the affidavit are such as to merit interference by me in an appeal against acquittal. Appeal is dismissed. G.S.M. ----- Appeal dismissed.