C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J. ( 1 ) REPORT given by the Sub Inspector of police, West Zone (Task Force) alleging that the management of Gazali Public School disfigured a public place by hanging banner, and thus committed an offence under A. P. Prevention of Disfigurement of Open place and Prohibition of Obscene and objectionable Posters and Advertisements act, 1997 (for short the Act ), was registered by the Station House Officer, Golconda Police station, as Crime No. 83 of 2003 and after investigation, the Inspector of Police, golconda Police Station, filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner for an offence under section 4 of the Act, which was taken on file as C. C. No. 716 of 2003 by the learned IX metropolitan Magistrate. This petition is filed to quash the said C. C. ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner strongly relying on Surajmani Srimali v. State of Orissa contends that in view of Section 15 of the Act which lays down that notwithstanding anything contained in Code of Criminal Procedure (for short - the code ) offences punishable under Section 3 and 4 of the Act are deemed to be cognizable offences and since Section 16 of the Act lays down that courts cannot take cognizance of any offence under the Act except on a complaint filed by the officer mentioned therein, and since complaint as per Section 2 (d) of the Code does not include police report and since police report , as per Section 2 (n) of the code, means a report forwarded by a Police officer to a Magistrate under Section 173 (2) of the Code and since the charge-sheet in this case shows that it is filed under Section 173 of the Code, it is clear that it is a police repor but not a complaint as defined in Sec. 2 (d) c the Code and so the same is liable to be quashed. Heard the learned Additional public Prosecutor. Heard the learned Additional public Prosecutor. ( 3 ) SECTION 16 of the Act reads,"no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act except on a complaint filed, in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad, visakhapatnam and Vijayawada by the commissioner of Police or by any Police officer not below the rank of an Inspector of Police authorized by him in this behalf and elsewhere by the District Collector or any Officer not below the rank of a mandal Revenue Officer authorized by him in this behalf". Notification bearing No. Lando/m/6/1104/ 2003 issued by the Commissioner of Police, on 18-03-2003, is produced by the learned additional Public Prosecutor. The said notification authorizes all officers of and above the rank of Inspector of Police to take action and lay complaints in appropriate court for violation of the provisions of the act. Since charge-sheet in this case is filed by inspector of Police, in view of the above notification it is clear that, it is filed by an officer who is competent to file it, as per section 16 of the Act. ( 4 ) NOW, the question is whether charge- sheet filed by the Inspector of Police in pursuance of the authorization issued by the commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, is a complaint under the Act or not. No doubt as per the ratio in Surajmani Srimali case (1 supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner it cannot be treated as a complaint . But, I am not able to agree with the view taken by the learned Judge in that case because the word complaint is not defined in the Act. So, the question is whether definition of complaint in the Code can be made use of for constructing the word complaint used in Section 16 of the Act. In my opinion it cannot be, for the following reasons. ( 5 ) IN MSCO Private Limited v. Union of india and State of Kerala v. Mathai Verghese, the Supreme Court held that in the absence of definition of a word in a statute it is hazardous to interpret that word in accordance with the definition of that word in another statute. ( 5 ) IN MSCO Private Limited v. Union of india and State of Kerala v. Mathai Verghese, the Supreme Court held that in the absence of definition of a word in a statute it is hazardous to interpret that word in accordance with the definition of that word in another statute. It is well known that if a word is not defined in a statute, while constructing that word the Court can take into consideration as to how that word is understood in common parlance because in paras 10 and 11 of Commissioner of Income tax, West Bengal, Calcutta v. Benoy Kumar sahas Roy it is held: (10) "the terms agriculture and agricultural purpose not having been defined in the Indian Income-tax Act, we must necessarily fall back upon the general sense in which they have been understood in common parlance. . . . . . . . . . . It may be permissible to look to the dictionary meaning of the term in the absence of any definition thereof in the relevant statutes. As was observed by lord Coleridge, in R. v. Peters ( (1886) 16 qdb 636 at P. 641): I am quite aware that dictionaries are not to be taken as authoritative exponents of the meanings of words used in Acts of Parliament, but it is a well known rule of courts of law that words should be taken to be used in their ordinary sense, and we are therefore sent for instruction to these books. (11) COZENS-HARDY, M. R. , also said in Camden (Marquis) v. I. R. C. (1914) 1914- 1 K B 641 at P-647): it is for the court to interpret the statute as best it may. It so doing the courts may no doubt assist themselves in the discharge of their duty by any literary help they can find, including of course the consultation of standard authors and reference to well known and authoritative dictionaries". It so doing the courts may no doubt assist themselves in the discharge of their duty by any literary help they can find, including of course the consultation of standard authors and reference to well known and authoritative dictionaries". ( 6 ) SINCE Section 15 of the Act makes the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act cognizable and since Section 16 of the Act places an embargo on any person other than those mentioned therein filing a complaint before the Court for offences under sections 3 and (or) 4 of the Act, any person who notices violation of Section 3 and (or) 4 of the Act can only report about such violation to police to swing them into action, but cannot file a complaint against the offender in the court. If the police after investigation into such report or complaint find that there is violation of the provisions of Section 3 and (or) 4 of the Act, have to necessarily bring that fact to the notice of the Court, for the offender to be punished for violation of provisions of Sections 3 and (or) 4 of the Act, by way of a complaint or report. If such complaint or report by police is taken as police report only, but not a complaint as is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the object with which the Act is brought into force gets frustrated. Therefore, court, while, interpreting the word complaint in Section 16 of the Act has to adopt purposive interpretation , by invoking the Rule in Hey don s case which is approved and followed by the Supreme Court in Bengal immunity Co. v. State of Bihar and Pawan kumar v. State of Haryana since such interpretation would only suppress the mischief intended to be prevented by the act. v. State of Bihar and Pawan kumar v. State of Haryana since such interpretation would only suppress the mischief intended to be prevented by the act. So, the report filed by the Commissioner of Police or any Officer authorized by him under Section 16 of the Act before the magistrate for offences under Sections 3 and (or) 4 of the Act should be construed as a complaint under the Act, but not as a police report as defined in the Code, more so because as per the new International webster s Pocket Dictionary the meaning of complaint is:" (1) A statement of wrong, grievance or injury; (2) The paper setting forth the plaintiff s cause of action; (3) A grievance; (4) A physical ailment; disease. "and as per funk and Wagnalls Standard Desk dictionary its meaning is-" (1) An expression of pain, grief, or dissatisfaction; (2) A cause for complaining; grievance; (3) An ailment; disorder; (4) Law a formal charge. "and in common parlance, the accusation made by one against another before a criminal I case also is known as complaint . The object behind Section 16 of the Act empowering only high ranking police officers, but not all and sundry, to bring the violation of the provisions of Sections 3 and (or) 4 of the Act to the notice of the Court, by filing a complaint is to avoid misuse of the Act by public and so merely because the word complaint is used therein it should not be taken to mean that complaint does not include police report or charge-sheet . ( 7 ) THEREFORE, I find no merits in the criminal petition and so the same is dismissed.