BANSIDHAR PATNAIK Vs. PROVINCE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners seek review of the orders of the Court below convicting them under Sections 145 and 188, Penal Code, for having violated an order under Schedule 44, Criminal P. C., promulgated by the Magistrate and having failed to disperse the unlawful assembly after having been commanded to do so.

(2.) The petitioners' contention is that the prosecution under Schedule 88, Penal Code, is bad in law as no complaint was filed by the public authority concerned according to the provisions of Schedule 95, Criminal P. C. Secondly, that the trial, being bad in law as to Schedule 88, Penal Code, is bad in its entirety. Bansidhar Patnaik and Ors. vs. Province of Orissa (29.09.1950 -ORIHC) Page 2 of 4

(3.) These contentions are sought to be met by the learned Advocate-General, appearing for the State, in two ways: (i) that the offence under. Schedule 88, Penal Code, has bean declared cognisable under Schedule 0, Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, and hence compliance with Section 195, Criminal P. C. is not necessary; and (ii) that even if the trial be bad with regard to offence Under Section 188, it is not so with regard to the offence under Schedule 45, Penal Code. The latter is an independent offence. The prosecution therefore is not subject to prerequisite of complaint by the public authority concerned.