MAHOMED MEERA Vs. DATTATRAYA BABAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference made by the Sessions Judge of Belgaum for revision of an order of compensation passed under Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, against the Police Patil of Karoshi who had made a false report to the Police Sub-Inspector that the two accused had committed theft of certain logs of wood belonging to Government. Accused No.1 is a medical practitioner of Karoshi and accused No.2 is the Kulkarni of the village. They purchased a babul tree standing on the boundary of the field of one Krishna Zutale and had it cut into logs. The Police Patil saw the logs lying by the roadside, and thinking that some one had wrongly cut a roadside tree belonging to Government, he made a panchnama about the logs on January 21, 1943, and kept them under attachment. The two. accused came to know of this, and immediately sent an intimation to the Police Patil that they had purchased the tree from its owner Krishna Zutale, and that if he had attached the logs, he should give a receipt to them. The Patil sent a reply to them that he had made no panchanama nor attached the logs, and that they might remove them whenever they liked. Accordingly the accused had the logs removed, some to the front yard of accused No.1 and some to the garden of accused No.2. The Patil then made a report to the Police Sub-Inspector at Chikodi that the two accused had committed theft of logs cut from a Government tree and that he had received information from the village servant that they had been removed by the accused to their quarters. THIS information was sent as a report on a printed form, in which he had described himself as the complainant, the two accused as the culprits, and the offence committed as "theft". After investigation, a charge-sheet was sent against both the accused, and the Resident First Class Magistrate of Chikodi, who tried them, found the complaint false, frivolous and vexatious, and acquitted the accused. He then issued a notice to the Patil under Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code and ordered him to pay a compensation of Rs. 25 to each of the accused or in default to suffer simple imprisonment for thirty days. The learned Sessions Judge has found that the complaint of the Patil was false and frivolous and the order for payment of compensation is well-deserved. But being of opinion that Section 250 does not apply to a Police Patil reporting the commission of an offence to the Police Station in his official capacity, he has recommended that the order should be set aside.

(2.) SECTION 250 can be applied only when a case is "instituted upon complaint or upon information given to a Police-officer or to a Magistrate. " In this case the Patil did not give any information to a Magistrate nor did he make a complaint which according to the definition given in SECTION 4 (h) of the Criminal Procedure Code means the 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 it does not include the report of a police officer.

(3.) THUS it may be taken as well settled, nor has it been challenged in this Court, that Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not apply to a case instituted on a police report or on information given by a Police-officer either to his superior, or to a Magistrate, regarding a cognizable offence. But it is contended that a Village Police Patil is not a Police-officer, such as is referred to in Section 250. There is no definition of a Police-officer in the Criminal Procedure Code. The appointment of the Police Patil is made under Section 5 of the Bombay Village Police Act, 1867, and Section 1 of that Act has adopted the definition of "police Officer" as that given in Section 3 (6) of the Bombay District Police Act, 1890, namely any member of a police force appointed under that Act. But this restrictive definition given for the purpose of a local Act cannot be applied in interpreting Section 250.