(Oral) 1. This reference has landed into this court by virtue of an order passed by Sessions Judge, Poonch on 26.07.2000. 2. Police received an information from the accused that militants were hiding in a Nallah at Village Kasaba Poonch District. Police reg­istered a case against the informer that he had transmitted incorrect information and such in­formation has caused fear and alarm to the gen­eral public. FIR was registered and after hold­ing "investigation" challan was produced un­der Section 505 RPC before Munsiff Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Poonch who in turn com­mitted the same to the Sessions Court. 3. Sessions Judge found two infirmities in the case. One that it was a special offence and was triable by a special court and that produc­tion of challan according to the Sessions Judge was erroneous. He also found that the challan in the case did not originate from the authority as required under Section 505 RPC. The manner in which the investigating agency and the Judi­cial Magistrate have conducted themselves re­quires a brief comment. 4. In the first instance the investigating of­ficer did not even bother to go through the text of Section 505 RPC so as to find out as to whether or not the provisions of Section 505 were attracted. Section 505 is aimed at restrain­ing the public from making publication or cir­culating any such statement which may cause fear or alarm to public or any section thereof or incite one community or class of the society to commit any offence against the other. An information with regard to presence of some militants could not ordinarily be treated to be one which could fall within the mischief of Sec­tion 505 RPC. The police did not register the basic ingredients of Section 505. Taking a judi­cial notice of the ground situation, this infor­mation would not do any of the things which are required to be curbed by this provision of law. On the other hand this might put the pub­lic on vigil and alert and save them from the panic and alarm which any militant activity could have generated. 5. Be that as it may, I have no hesitation in observing that the investigating agency has con­ducted this case in a very rough shored manner. The same carelessness has been shown in production of challan. Nobody tried to bother as to which was the court which could try the case. 5. Be that as it may, I have no hesitation in observing that the investigating agency has con­ducted this case in a very rough shored manner. The same carelessness has been shown in production of challan. Nobody tried to bother as to which was the court which could try the case. While as the offence was to be tried by a special Judge, the investigating officer produced the challan before the Judicial Magistrate Poonch on 13.03.1998 wherefrom it was com­mitted to court of Sessions. The Judicial Mag­istrate did not bother to find out as to which was the court which could try this offence. In taking cognizance and committing the case to the court of sessions, the Judicial Magistrate also committed an error. I am tempted to place on record mat a Judicial officer cannot deal with a case without pillowing up the provisions of Code of Criminal procedure. The officer, who is on the thresh hold of his career, I hope, will not repeat such an error of proceedings ahead with the case without looking at the provisions of law. 6. Going back to the merits of the case, I am constrained to make a reference with respect to the investigation of the case. Trial of special offences including one under Section 505 of RPC is regulated by Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as under:- "196: Prosecution for offences against the State:- No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under chapter VI or IX-A of the Ranbir Penal Code (Except Section 127, (and Section 171-F, so far as it relates to the offence of personation), or punishable under Section 108-A, or Section 153-A, or Section 294-A,(or Section 295-A) or Section 505 of the Ranbir Penal Code, unless upon complaint made by the order of, or under authority from the Government or District Magistrate or such other officer as may be empowered by the Government in this behalf." 7. A birds eye view of the above provision will show that a complaint in terms of Section 505 must be made by the Government or Dis­trict Magistrate or any other officer as may be empowered by the Government in this behalf. A birds eye view of the above provision will show that a complaint in terms of Section 505 must be made by the Government or Dis­trict Magistrate or any other officer as may be empowered by the Government in this behalf. The object of confining the power of making a complaint is to ensure that before initiating such complaint proper application of mind is made and that police power of the state is not mis­used for settling individual scores or wrecking vengeance. This provision of State law marks a distinction from the Central Act where com­plaint can be filed after obtaining the sanction of the Central Government. But here it is nec­essary that complaint itself should be made by the Government, District Magistrate or an of­ficer empowered in this behalf. Thus a police officer himself could not lodge an FIR or insti­tute a complaint under Section 505 RPC. That is what has been done in the present case. In view of the complaint not being in confirmity with Section 196, the court was not competent to take cognizance. Thus the complaint was fraught with the defect of not having been made by the competent authority and Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure places a bar for the court to take cognizance on such a com­plaint. 8. I find the proceedings initiated by the police against the accused to be illegal. The complaint is not filed by the authority as re­quired under Section 505. The committal part of the proceedings was also against law. Above all the ingredients of Section 505 are also miss­ing. That being the position I dismiss the pros­ecution case and confirm the order of reference.