Judgment ( 1. ) BY this order, both the revisions are being decided because same party has filed these revisions against the same non-applicants. In criminal Revision No. 550/04, the challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 29-10-03 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Betul in Criminal revision No. 47/03. ( 2. ) IN Criminal Revision No. 436/04, the challenge has been made to the order dated 8-12-03 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Betul in Criminal Case no. 88/2003. ( 3. ) IN brief, the facts of the case are that the applicant on authorization by institute of Chartered Accountants lodged first information report in police station, betul against the non-applicant no. 1, alleging that non-applicant no. 1, Vimal Kumar surana is not a registered Chartered Accountant in the Institute of Chartered accountants of India as per provisions of Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (for short the Act) and regulations framed thereunder as per provisions under Section 30 of the Act. It is said that non-applicant no. 1 was practicing before Income-Tax and Sales Tax Department as a representative of assessee. He was preparing reports as Chartered Accountant and also issuing certificate. He was preparing forged documents by using seal of Chartered Accountant and therefore, committed offence punishable under Sections 419,420, 465, 467, 468, 472 and 473 of IPC as well as under Sections 24 and 26 of the Act. The Betul police station took cognizance and registered Crime No. 150/01 for the above mentioned offence and after investigation, filed charge-sheet against the non-applicant no. 1, Vimal Kumar surana. ( 4. ) THE learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Betul framed charges for the above mentioned offences against the non-applicant no. land non-applicant no. l, filed criminal Revision No. 47/03 against the order dated 10-3-03 and the learned Lower revisional Court by order dated 29-10-03 remanded the case back to the learned chief Judicial Magistrate holding in paragraph-17, that there was no sufficient material and ground for framing charges under Sections 417,420,468,471 and 472 and directed the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to hear the parties afresh for framing of charges as per provisions of the Act or under the provisions of Indian penal Code. ( 5. ( 5. ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant submitted that he had lodged report in police station on the basis of authorization by the counsel of Chartered Accountant as per provisions under Section 28 of the Act which reads as under:- "28. Sanction to prosecute-No person shall be prosecuted under this Act except on a complaint made by or under the order of the Council or of the Central Government. " ( 6. ) LEARNED counsel has submitted that in view of the aforesaid provision, applicant was authorized to lodge FIR in police and police had rightly taken cognizance and thereafter, filed final report as per provision under- section 173 cr. RC. It is also submitted that learned Lower Revisional Court has committed error in law while interpreting the provision under Section 28 of the Act and there is sufficient material in the charge-sheet against the non-applicant no. 1 for framing charges of cheating, forgery as per provision under the Indian Penal Code and commission of breach of Section 24 and 26 of the Act. ( 7. ) ON the other hand, learned counsel for non-applicant no. 1 has supported the impugned order passed by Lower Revisional Court in Criminal Revision No. 47/03. ( 8. ) HAVING heard learned counsel for parties and after perusing the impugned order and record of the case, this court is of the view that the lower revisional court has not committed any illegality while passing the impugned order. As per provision under Section 28 of the Act, the court can take cognizance only when complaint is filed by the council or under the order of the council or the Central government. Complaint is defined under Section 2 (d) of Cr. P. C ( in short the code) which is reproduced herein for convenience. "complaint"- means any 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 does not include a police report. " ( 9. ) IN view of the aforesaid definition of complaint, it is clear that complaint does not include a police report whereas in the instant case, police filed report as per provision under Section 173 of Cr. " ( 9. ) IN view of the aforesaid definition of complaint, it is clear that complaint does not include a police report whereas in the instant case, police filed report as per provision under Section 173 of Cr. P. C. As per provision of Section 28 of the act, complaint can be filed before the competent court by the Chartered accountants Institute or under order of the counsel or by. Central Government but in the instant case, no such complaint was filed in the court by the applicant. In context to this provision, provision under Section 190 of the Code is also relevant to clarify that learned Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance of any offence- (a) Upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; (b) Upon a police report of such facts; (c ) Upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed. Provision of Section 190 of Code has also clarified the position that there is difference between police report and complaint. In the instant case, the cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on the basis of the police report, which is contrary to the provision of Section 28 of the Act, but this bar would apply for taking cognizance of commission of offence under Sections 24, 24 (A) and 26 of "the Act". In Chapter VII of the Act, penalties are prescribed for commission of breach of provisions of Act and regulations made thereunder:-- "24. Penalty for falsely claiming to be a member, etc :-Any person who- (i) not being a member of the Institute:- (a) represents that he is a member of the Institute; or (b) uses the designation Chartered Accountant, or (ii) being a member of the Institute, but not having a certificate of practice, represents that he is in practice, or practices as a chartered accountants, shall be punishable on first conviction with fine with may extend to one thousand rupees, and on any subsequent conviction with imprisonment which may extent to six months or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both. 24a. Penalty for using name of the Council, awarding degrees of chartered accountancy, etc:- (l)Saveas otherwise provided in this Act, no person shall- (i) use name or a common seal which is. 24a. Penalty for using name of the Council, awarding degrees of chartered accountancy, etc:- (l)Saveas otherwise provided in this Act, no person shall- (i) use name or a common seal which is. identical with the name or the common seal of the Institute or so nearly resembles it as to deceive or as is likely to deceive the public; (ii) award any degree, diploma or certificate or bestow any designation which indicates or purports to indicate the position or attainment of any qualification or competence similar to that of a member of the Institute; or (iii) seek to regulate in any manner whatsoever the profession of chartered accountants. 2. Any person contravening the provisions of sub-section (1) shall, without prejudice to any other proceedings which may be taken against him, be punishable with fine which may extend on first conviction to one thousand rupees, and on any subsequent conviction with imprisonment which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both. 3. Nothing contained in this section shall apply to any university established by law or to any Body affiliated to the institute. 26. Unqualified persons not to sign documents :- (1) No person other than a member of the Institute shall sign any document on behalf of a "[chartered accountant in practice] or a [firm of such chartered accountants] in his or its professional capacity. (2) Any person contravening the provisions of sub-section (1) shall, without prejudice to any other proceedings which may be taken against him, be punishable with fine which may extend on first conviction to one thousand rupees and on any subsequent conviction with imprisonment which may extend to six months. or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both. " ( 10. ) IT is well settled legal proposition that when for a commission of a particular crime there is specific enactment then the person concerned shall be prosecuted under the provisions of the Special Act and not under the provisions of Indian penal Code. It is clear from the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of Code which are extracted hereinunder thus:- "4. It is clear from the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of Code which are extracted hereinunder thus:- "4. Trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code and other laws :- (1) All offences under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions hereinafter contained; (2) All offences under other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigation, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. 5. Saving:- Nothing contained in this Code shall, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, affect any special or local law for the time being in force, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time being in force. " ( 11. ) THERE is no allegation against the non-applicant no. 1, that he is not a qualified accountant or unfit for registration as per provisions of "the Act" to practice. There cant be any dispute that prima facie case for prosecution of the non-applicant no. l is made out as per provisions under Section 24, 24a and 26 of the Act which are special provisions under the Special enactments, on the basis of allegations made by the applicant. ( 12. ) IN the complaint lodged by the applicant/complainant, it is alleged that non-applicant no. 1 was practicing as Chartered Accountant without his registration or certification as per provisions of the Act and rules framed thereunder, therefore, he has committed the offence of cheating and forgery. Since, specific provisions are made for commission of breach of provisions of the Act, the non-applicant no. l cannot be prosecuted for the offence punishable under sections of the Indian penal Code. This view is fortified by the judgment passed in the cases of Mustan patel Vs. State of West Bengal 2002 (3 )Crimes 358; Jaheer Ahmad Vs. Ajam khan 1996 Cr. L. J. 290; Sayeed Kalim Vs. Maysoor Laxmi Bidi Works and ors. 1993 CR. L. J. 232 and P. P. Chandana and Ors. Vs. State of M. P. 1996 (Vol. 1) C. CR. 408. ( 13. State of West Bengal 2002 (3 )Crimes 358; Jaheer Ahmad Vs. Ajam khan 1996 Cr. L. J. 290; Sayeed Kalim Vs. Maysoor Laxmi Bidi Works and ors. 1993 CR. L. J. 232 and P. P. Chandana and Ors. Vs. State of M. P. 1996 (Vol. 1) C. CR. 408. ( 13. ) IT is also argued that the applicant appeared before the Income Tax and sales Tax Authorities under the authorization as attorney on behalf of the assessee and submitted documents as Chartered Accountant, therefore, he had cheated the authorities. In this regard, the provision under Section 195 of Cr. P. C is applicable and cognizance can be taken by the Magistrate on. the basis of complaint in writing of that court or of such other court to which that court is subordinate or authorities considered as court. In the instant case, Income- Tax or Sales Tax authority has not filed any complaint against the non-applicant no. 1. After remand of the case by the lower Revisional Court, as per impugned order dated 29-10-03, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Betul has passed the order dated 8-12-03, under challenge in Criminal Revision No. 436/04 filed by the applicant. In this order, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has held that complaint filed by the applicant is as per provision under section 28 of the Act, therefore, cognizance on the basis of charge-sheet / report filed by the police cannot be taken for commission of offence punishable under Sections 24, 24a and 26 of the Act. It is also held by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate that for the offence under Section 465 of I. P. C, the cognizance can be taken only on the basis of complaint filed by the Income-Tax or Sales Tax Authorities who are falling within the category of ("court") as per provision under Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) of the Code. This court does not find any illegality, irregularity or perversity in the order dated 8-12-03. ( 14. ) IN the result, in view of the foregoing discussion, both the revision petitions are dismissed with a liberty to the applicant to file a criminal complaint as per provision under Section 28 of the Act for commission of offences U/ss 24, 24a and 26 of "the Act" and if the Income-Tax and Sales Tax authorities deem it fit, may file complaint against the non-applicant no. l, as per provision under Section 195 of Cr. P. C, before the competent court having jurisdiction. It is made clear that if any complaint is filed by the applicant or any other authority/authorities empowered as per provision under Section 195 of Cr. P. C, the observations made in this order shall not be taken into consideration and the complaint shall be decided by the concerned court in accordance with the provisions of law. ( 15. ) BOTH the revision petitions are hereby dismissed". Petition dismissed.