1994 PLP 1280 (SCMR)

ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 21‑6‑1992 to consider whether the complaint filed by the District Magistrate against the appellant was competent.

2. The facts of this case are that the appellant, an ex‑driver of Education Department, filed a complaint against Mrs. Sarwat Ara Chaudhry, District Education Officer, Gujrat, alleging therein that she was misusing the Government vehicle. The complaint was filed before the Commissioner, who forwarded it to the Deputy Commissioner for report. The Deputy Commissioner appointed the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Gujrat, for holding an inquiry. The Additional Deputy Commissioner found the complaint filed by the appellant to be a false. He sent his inquiry report to the Deputy Commissioner, who directed that a complaint under section 182, P.P.C. be filed against the appellant. A preliminary objection was raised before the trial Court that the Deputy Commissioner could not file the complaint, as the same was submitted to the Commissioner, who was only competent to file complaint. This objection did not prevail with the Courts below.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that by virtue of section 195(1)(a), Cr. P.C. complaint can be filed either by a public servant concerned or by some other public servant to whom he is subordinate. He submitted that as the Deputy Commissioner is a subordinate to the Commissioner, therefore, the complaint was incompetently filed and no proceedings could be initiated against the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to Malik Muhammad Sadiq v. The State (1977 PCr.LJ 445), Mst. Nawab Begum v. The state (1972 P CrLJ 79), Ali Ahmad v. The State (1984 PCr.LJ 772), and The State v. Syed Sardar Shah Bukhari (PLD 1975 Lah. 1407). In the instant case the appellant filed a complaint before the Divisional Commissioner, who simply forwarded the same to the Deputy Commissioner without any action or direction. The Deputy Commissioner took cognizance of the complaint filed by the appellant. He appointed an Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer examined the witnesses on behalf of the parties and then recorded his opinion that the complaint was false. It was on the direction of the Deputy Commissioner that the A.D.C. conducted the inquiry. The report was submitted to the Deputy Commissioner by the Investigating Officer. The report was not sent to the Commissioner for taking any further action. The Deputy Commissioner himself scrutinized the inquiry report and directed that a complaint be filed under section 182, P.P.C. against the appellant. It was not the requirement of law that as the complaint by the appellant was submitted to the Commissioner, therefore, he should have passed the orders. The Deputy Commissioner in the given circumstances of the case for all intents and purposes, was the officer concerned. The allegations made by the appellant in his complaint were repeated before the Inquiry Officer. It is an admitted legal position that a complaint can only be filed either by a person, who is a public servant concerned or by public servant to whom he is subordinate. There are long lines of judgments in support of this view; such as Nasim Akhtar Soofi v. The State (1990 PCr.LJ 336), Abdul Hanan v. The State (1990 P Cr.Ll. 777), Muhammad Boota Anjum v. The State (1990 PCr.L1 1538), Nizamuddin Samejo v. S.D.M. (1988 PCr.LJ 988), Sher Muhammad v. Emperor (AIR 1940 Lah. 15), and Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab (AIR 1962 SC 1206). There is a contrary view in Ashfaq Ahmed Cheema v. The State (1985 PCr.LJ 2104), wherein it has been observed that "it was not necessary that Assistant Commissioner to whom original application was submitted, should have filed a complaint‑Police officer being a public servant was competent to lodge complaint." In Sheo Prasad v. State (AIR 1959 Allahabad 378) it has been observed as under:‑‑ "Where false information regarding a demand of bribery made by a public servant supplied to the Chief Minister is sent for inquiry and that information is again repeated in the inquiry made by a Sub?-Divisional Magistrate, the repeated information can be basis on which the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate can file a complaint against the informant for an offence under section 182, Penal Code, the said Magistrate will under section 195, Criminal P.C. be the public servant concerned. The fact that the informant did not volunteer the information to the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate but was bound to answer the questions put to him is immaterial. For, the informant was bound to tell the truth, but instead if he repeats the false statement, then proceedings can be taken against him whether the statement had been made voluntarily or upon questions put to him." The jurisdiction on Court is conferred by an action of an officer concerned. The action on the complaint filed by the appellant wag taken by the Deputy Commissioner. The matter was judiciously investigated by the Deputy Commissioner. It was, therefore, not necessary that the Commissioner should have filed the complaint. The proceedings under section 182, P.P.C. taken against the appellant on the complaint of the Deputy Commissioner were legally valid and there is no infringement of the provisions of section 195(1)(a), Cr.P.C. In the result this appeal has no force and the same is dismissed. N.H.Q./A‑1131/S ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.