LexBHOLANATH AMRITLAL PUROHIT versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H - BHOLANATH AMRITLAL PUROHIT v. STATE OF GUJARAT August 14, 1970 [S. M. Suoo, K. s. HEGDE AND I. D. DUA, JJ.] 817 Indian Post Office Act, 1898 (6 of 1898), s. 12-Section requiring com- plaint for offence covered by s. 55 to made by order of or under authority from Director-General or Post Master General-Information about offence under s. 55 given by postal authorities to police-Report under s. 173 Cr. P.C. sub1nitted by police after investigation-Magistrate taking cog~ '.nizance of offence-Trial whether invalid for non~cotnpliance with s.72 ";of Post office Act. The appellant was tried and convicted by tbe Judicial Magistrate !st Class Broach under s.55 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. In appeal the conviction was affirmed by the Sessions Judge. The revision petition in the High Court failed and appeal with certificate was filed in this Court. The conviction was challenged on the ground tbat the appellanfs trial was illegal as the case against him had not proceeded on the basis of a complaint made by order of or under authority from the Director General or Post Master General as required by s. 72 of the Indian Post Office Act. the same having been taken cognizance of on the basis of ;.l police report under s. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after invc~ti gation under Ch. XlV (Part V) of that Code. HELD : The expression 'complaint' is not defined in the Post Office Act but the 'complaint' contemplated under s.55 is one that initiates a prosecution on the basis of which the accused if found guilty is punishable with in1prisonmcnt for a term which may extend to two years and also with fine. That being so the expression 'complaint' in s. 72 cannot be equated to mere information or accusation. The context in which the expression is used in s. 72 indicates that it is a formal document indicting an offic\!r of the postal department for a criminal offence. The purpose be- hind s. 72 is that officials of the postal department should not be harassed with frivolous prosecutions an<l that before any of the prosecutions con- templated by s. 72 is launched, the authorities mentioned in that section should have examined the appropriateness of launching a prosecution and either file a complaint themselves or authorise the filing of such a com- plaint. Such a requirement will not be satisfied if the concerned authori- ties 1ncrely ask the police to investigate into the case and take appropriate action. An information laid before the police or even a sanction granted for a prosecution by the police Vi'ould not nleet the requirement of s.7~. [819 F-Hl If the legislature contemplated that a mere informauon to the police by the appropriate authority is sufficient then there was no need to enact s.72. Further if all that was required was to obtain sanction of the con- cerned authority then the legislature would have enacted a provision simi- lar to s. 197 of the Cr. P.C. The fact that the legislature did not choose to adopt either of the two courses"'mentioned abqve is a clear :ndication of tbe fact :hat the mandate of s. 72 ¥.; that there should be a formal com- plaint as contemplated by s. 4(1) (b) of the Crim;nal Procedure Code. [820 A-BJ Since there was no suqh complaint in the present case the magistrate was incomPt>!ent to take cognizance of the o:"ence and the appellant's trial was invalid. The appeal must accordingly be allowed. [820 DJ · Ll69Sup.Cl(P)/71-8 818 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (197 l] 1 S.C.R. Emperor v. Rohini Kumar Sen X Cal. Weekly Notes 1029'; G11a11a- A Prakasam Baranabas v. State l.L.R. [1953] T.C. 600; Narotamdas Bhikabai v. State of G1tjarat (1962) 2 Cr. L.l. 165; and Alublwi Mujabliai v. State of Gujarat 7 Gujarat Law Reporter 698; referred to. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 1967. Appeal from the judgment and order dated August 29, 1966 cf the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 291 of 1966. H. K. Puri, for the appellant. 1<. L. Hathi and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J. The appellant was t'ried and convicted by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, 1st Court, Broach under s. 55 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 (to be hereinafter referred to B c as the Act) and Seilltenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one D month and to pay a fine of Rs. 100 / - in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three we
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.