Judgment This is a petition filed by Shri B.G. Keskar to revise an order passed by the District Magistrate, Hyderabad City in Crl. C. No. 77/5 of 1956, refusing to take action on certain information laid by the petitioner under section 190(1)(c),Criminal Procedure Code . The facts leading up to this revision petit on may be briefly stated: On 11th June, 1956, the petitioner lodged what he styled as “information” making certain allegations about the existence in Hyderabad City of “an illegal organisation which is a nucleus of a fifth columnist armed force of an anti-Bharat country, which is capable of dangerous subversive activities”, maintained by His Exalted Highness the Nizam and equipped with unlicensed fire-arms. That “information” was for the most part of a tirade against His Exalted Highness the Nizam on the one hand and a denunciation of the ‘Congress raj’ and the Prime Minister on the other. It must be mentioned here that at that time His Exalted Highness the Nizam was the Rajpramukh of the erstwhile Hyderabad State. On receipt of the aforesaid “information”, the District Magistrate directed the petitioner to delete all irrelevant and objectionable passages and amend the “information” suitably so as to the enable him to take action. The petitioner accordingly filed an amended “information” on 27th June, 1956, the contents of which are as follows: “Subject: Information under section 190(1), Criminal Procedure Code of Offences under the Arms Act, etc. Reference: This Court’s Order, dated 18th June, 1956. Informant respectfully states: As per order of this Court referred above the original information dated 11th June, 1956 is, amended with a view to make it technically a formal one and to facilitate cognisance by this Hon’ble Court.” The amended information (which is not a complaint as presumed by this Court) now runs thus: “1. An organisation of about one thousand men armed, equipped and ranked like the State Police and other concerned departments exists in Hyderabad. 2. This organisation has no legal sanction: 3 This organisation works as a parallel force within the jurisdiction of the State Police and other departments. 4. The fire-arms possessed by this organisation are not licensed. 5. This organisation has three divisions or branches: (a) Police-under the command of Shriyut S. N. Reddy, Barrister and Ex-Commissioner of City Police. (b) Golkonda Infantry-under the command of Colonel Ameeruddin. (c) Maisram Infantry-under the command of Major Ashraf. 6. 4. The fire-arms possessed by this organisation are not licensed. 5. This organisation has three divisions or branches: (a) Police-under the command of Shriyut S. N. Reddy, Barrister and Ex-Commissioner of City Police. (b) Golkonda Infantry-under the command of Colonel Ameeruddin. (c) Maisram Infantry-under the command of Major Ashraf. 6. Informant approached the Police department first and when he was convinced that it had no desire to take up such a serious matter which concerns the safety of the country, informant has to seek the help of the Judiciary. 7. This is not a formal and technical complaint but information under section 190(1)(c),Criminal Procedure Code and hence the names and sections respectively of the accused and the laws are not necessary. Even in a complaint the names of the accused are not essential as the very definition of a complaint in the Criminal Procedure Code contemplates that it can be against”A person known or unknown.“ 8. Informant has done his duty in the capacity of a layman citizen and in the interests of the country. He is confident that this Honourable Court will apply the proper section of the proper Act, in the light of the inquiry it orders upon this information. Informant knows that the Raj Pramukh is immune from Criminal Proceedings till he occupies that August chair and hence even in his information of 11th June, 1956 he had not requested this Honourable Court to take any step against the Rajpramukh. Thereupon the learned District Magistrate, acting presumably under section 156 (2), Criminal Procedure Code, forwarded the “information” to the police for investigation. The Commissioner of the City Police investigated into the matter and submitted his report. Thereupon the learned District Magistrate, acting presumably under section 156 (2), Criminal Procedure Code, forwarded the “information” to the police for investigation. The Commissioner of the City Police investigated into the matter and submitted his report. That report showed that there was no organisation of men armed, equipped and ranked like the State Police as alleged by the informant; that it is true there is an organisation consisting of a large number of men who perform watch and ward duties at the palace of the Rajpramukh; that they are not armed like the Police but wear distinctive uniforms and badges; that this organisation has been in existence for a long time as a personal privilege of the Ruler and with the approval of the Government of India and the State Government; that there is no truth in the allegation that this organisation has been exercising the powers of the State Police and functioning as a parallel force; that it is true that the firearms possessed by this organisation are not licensed but that is by virtue of a privilege of the Rajpramukh recognised by the Government of India and the State Government. On receipt of that report the learned District Magistrate passed an order the operative portion of which is as follows: “Thus it is seen that the facts contained in the information of the extent of being objectionable are denied by the Police. There is no necessity to take any action in the matter. File be closed and. consigned to records.” It is this order that is challenged in revision. Learned advocate for the petitioner, in a somewhat meandering argument, complains that neither the police nor the District Magistrate have discharged the duties enjoined on them by law; that there was no investigation worth the name by the police and that the District Magistrate has erred in accepting the report of the Commissioner of Police at its face value. In my opinion there is no substance in the contention raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner. In the circumstances of the case the District Magistrate had no alternative but to drop the proceedings. In my opinion there is no substance in the contention raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner. In the circumstances of the case the District Magistrate had no alternative but to drop the proceedings. The allegations in the ‘information’ read in the light of the report submitted by the Commissioner of Police, made it abundantly clear that the ‘information’ lodged by the petitioner was in truth and substance an information against the Rajpramukh in whatever manner that information was sought to be camouflaged. That being the true import of the ‘information’ Article 361(2) of the Constitution was at once attracted and was a bar to further action being taken by the Magistrate inasmuch as the said provision afforded absolute protection to the Rajpramukh against all criminal proceedings. Clause 2 of Article 361 lays down: “No criminal proceedings whatsoever shall be instituted or continued against the President, or the Governor or Rajpramukh of a State, in any Court during his term of office”. There is no gainsaying the fact that in this case criminal proceedings were sought to be instituted against the Rajpramukh, and the constitutional immunity was sought to be circumvented. It is, however, contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Rajpramukh was not the target of the ‘information’, but that his underlings who are admittedly in possession of unlicensed fire-arms, are liable under section 19(f)of the Indian Arms Act. Even on that assumption it is evident that the District Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offence because section 29 of the Arms Act stood in the way. Section 29 enjoins that no proceedings shall be instituted against any person in respect of an offence punishable under section 19, clause (f) without the previous sanction of the Magistrate of the District or, in a Presidency town,. of the Commissioner of Police. In any view of the matter, the order of the learned District Magistrate is correct and unassailable. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. A.S.R. ----- Revision dismissed.