Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS reference has been made by the Sessions Juige, Ganganagar, who has recommended that the proceedings pending in the Court of the Extra Magistrate, First Class, Ganganagar, against Chaitan Jat of village Ghamurwalli, Tehsil Padampur, District Ganganagar, be quashed.
(2.) IT appears that Chaitan Jat had made (1) a petition to the Prime Minister of the former Bikaner State on the 10th of March, 1949, and another petition to the Prime Minister of Rajas-than on the 6th of June, 1949, complaining against (1) Sheokaran and (2) Khema constables of the local police. The petitions were sent to the police for investigation. The sub-Inspector of police who made the enquiry found the petitions baseless. Thereupon, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Rajasthan, Range Bikaner, ordered on the 22nd of November, 1949, that Chaitan be put on his trial for an offence under s. 211 of the Penal Code. Consequently, a complaint was filed by the sub-Inspector of Police against Chaitan in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Karanpur, who sent it to the Extra Magistrate, First Class, Ganganagar, for trial. On the 20th of January, 1950, the Prosecuting sub-Inspector of Police moved the latter Court that the complaint be considered to be one under s. 182 of the Penal Code instead of under s. 211. The Magistrate acceded to the request. The accused, when he appeared before the Court, raised certain legal objections regarding the maintainability of the complaint and the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. The objections were, however, rejected. Chaitan, thereupon, went up in revision to the Sessions Court, Ganganagar, and the learned Sessions Judge has made this reference. As mentioned above, Chaitan had made petitions to the Prime Minister of the former Bikaner State and the Prime Minister of Rajasthan. If the contents of the petitions were baseless or false, cognizance of an offence either under s. 182 or under s. 211 could be taken by a Court only on the complaint in writing of any of the two Prime Ministers, if they were to be regarded as public servants, or of some other public servants to whom they could be said to be subordinate vide s. 195 Cr. P. C. In this case, the complaint has not been filed by any of the two Prime Ministers or by any public servant to whom they could be said to be subordinate. Under the circumstances, the Magistrate was not empowered to take cognizance of the complaint made by the police, Bikaner, and, on that ground alone, the proceedings deserve to be quashed. There is, yet, another ground on which the proceedings deserve to be quashed. The accused is charged with an offence under s. 182 and it is alleged against him that with the intent to cause injury to another person the above mentioned two constables of police, he made two applications to the Prime Ministers of the former Bikaner State and of Rajas-than. These applications were either presented at Bikaner or Jaipur or they were posted from some place within the District of Ganganagar to Bikaner or Jaipur. Any way, these petitions containing the alleged false information were received by the Prime Minister of the former State of Bikaner at Bikaner or by the Prime Minister of Rajas-than at Jaipur. The offence under s. 182 is of giving of information, so as to cause public servant to act on it and is completed when the information reaches a public servant. The only Court that could try an offence with regard to these petitions were the Courts situated either at Bikaner or at Jaipur. In no case could a trial of an offence concerning either of these petitions could be held by the Courts of the Ganganagar District. A similar view appears to have been taken by the Madras High Court in Rathinam Filial v. Emperor. (vide A. I. R. 1932 Madras 427 ). Moreover, it is doubtful if any one Magistrate has a jurisdiction to try the two offences in respect of the two petitions. The proceedings against Chaitan pending before the extra Magistrate, First Class, Ganganagar, are, therefore, quashed, firstly, because there is no proper complaint filed by a competent person and secondly because no Courts in the District of Ganganagar has any jurisdiction to try the offence in question and the reference is accepted. .;