DAULAT RAM V. STATE OF PUNJAB AIR 1962 SC 1206

CASE NAME:	DAULAT RAM v. STATE OF PUNJAB AIR 1962 SC 1206
EQUIVALENT CITATION:	AIR 1962 SC 1206 SCR Supl.(2) 812
DATE OF JUDGEMENT:	25-01-1962 (25TH JANUARY 1962)
COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CASE NUMBER:	CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 126 OF 1960
CASE TYPE:	CRIMINAL APPEAL BY SPECIAL LEAVE
PETITIONER:	DAULAT RAM
RESPONDENT:	STATE OF PUNJAB
BENCH:	JUSTICE M. HIDAYATULLAH; J.L. KAPUR; RAGHUBAR DAYAL
STATUTES:	INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1898
IMPORTANT SECTIONS:	SECTION 182 OF IPC SECTION 195 OF CRPC

FACTS OF THE CASE:

It was an appeal by Daulat Ram (the petitioner), who was prosecuted under s.182 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three months imprisonment. He appealed in the Punjab High Court where his revision appeal was rejected and thus, he obtained a special leave to appeal in the Supreme Court under article 136 of the Indian Constitution.

The appellant (Daulat Ram) was a worker at Patwari. On August 19, 1958, he wrote a letter to the Tehsildar of Pathankot that he had been looted on the previous day by two men Hans Raj and Kans Raj, the two of them beat him up severely and robbed him off certain official papers which partly belonged to him and to the Government. Though the letter clearly stated that it was only for the information of the Tehsildar, the Tehsildar forwarded the letter to the Sub-Divisional officer who forwarded it to the Police. The Police then took further steps and started enquiring further into the facts. However, the appellant meanwhile entered into a sort of compromise with Hans Raj and Kans Raj and wrote another letter saying that they were his relatives and he found the papers and the money, so the proceedings if any conducted be dropped off. Due to the appellants compromise, the police found the allegations in the letter false. The matter was pursued further and when the report of the police came that the allegations in the original letter were false. The Tehsildar asked the police to draw up a “Calendar”.

PUNJAB HIGH COURT DECISION:

The police taking the matter further launched a prosecution against the appellant under s.182 of the Indian Penal Code, and after due trial, the appellant was found guilty of the offence by the High Court and was sentenced to three months of rigorous imprisonment. The appellant after serving out his entire sentence appealed again. His appeal and revision application were dismissed in limini by the High Court of Punjab at Chandigarh. The appellant obtained special leave to appeal from the Supreme Court under article 136 of the Constitution of India and filed the appeal.

ISSUES RAISED:

1. Whether under the provisions of section 195 of CrPC, it was not incumbent on the Tehsildar to present a complaint in writing against the appellant and not leave the court to be moved by the police by putting in a charge sheet?
2. The court has to decide whether the Tehsildar can be said to be public servant concerned and if he had not filed the complaint in writing, whether the police officers in filing the charge sheet had satisfied the requirements of s.195?

CONTENTION OF BOTH THE PARTIES:

• Whether a complaint in writing as required by s.195 had been presented by the public servant concerned? Whether the appellant wanted to wanted the Tehsildar to take actions or not?
• The learned counsel for the State Government on behalf of the respondent (State of Punjab) contented that

s.195 had been complied with in as much as when the allegations being disproved. The report letter from the office of the Superintendent of the Police was forwarded to the Tehsildar and then the Tehsildar only asked for “a calendar”. This paper was filed along with charge sheet and it stated that this satisfies the requirement of s.195.

SECTIONS REFERRED:

INDIAN PENAL CODE,1860:

SECTION 182: “ False information, with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person.” : If a person gives any information which is not true to a public servant intentionally so that the public servant do something which he should not do or won’t do if he knows the truth or not do something which he should do if he is aware of the true fact or if due to false information any person can get hurt or cause harm or false information will make the public servant use his lawful power which might cause harm someone or injure someone is a punishable offence.

CRIMINAL CODE OF PROCEDURE, 1898:

SECTION 195: “ (1) No Court shall take cognizance – (a) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 of Indian Penal Code, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned, or of some other public servant concerned, or of some other public servant to whom he is subordinate;”

JUDGEMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT:

• The public servant who was moved by the appellant was undoubtedly the Tehsildar.
• The fact that the appellant moved the Tehsildar on what is stated to be false “averment of factus”. The

appellant had charged Hans Raj and Kans Raj with offences under the Indian Penal Code and the appellant moved the superior officer for action even though he might have stated in letter that it was only for his information.

• The court assumes that the appellant expected some action to be taken by the Tehsildar. In fact, the

appellant’s second letter clearly indicated the dropping of some proceedings which he anticipated that they would be constituted or taken on the part of his superior officer.

• The words mentioned in s.195 of CrPC are explicit and they clearly state that the complaint has to be in

writing by the public servant concerned and that no court shall take cognizance except on such a complaint which clearly shows that in every instance the court must be moved by the appropriate public servant.

• The words “no court shall take cognizance” has been interpreted on more than one occasion and these

interpretations show that there is an absolute bar against the court taking possession of the case except in the manner provided by the section concerned.

• Talking about the offence under s.182 of the Indian Penal Code, the court opinionated that the offence was

undoubtedly complete when the appellant had moved the Tehsildar for action. Section 182 does not require that the action must always be taken if the person who moves the public servant knows or believes that the action would be taken. Therefore, while making his report to the Tehsildar, if the appellant believed that some action would be taken, there was no reason to doubt that it would not, the offence

under the section was complete. It was therefore incumbent, if the prosecution was to be launched, that the complaint in writing should be made by the Tehsildar as the public servant concerned in this case.

• The Supreme Court on the other hand also found that there was no complaint lodged/filed by the Tehsildar

but a chargesheet was put in by the Station House Officer (SHO).

• Thus, the SC opinionated that the complaint and the prosecution conducted were not in a due compliance

with the provisions of the section 195. What the section contemplates is that the complaint must be in writing by the public servant concerned and there is no such compliance in the present case.

• The Supreme Court held that the cognizance taken by the High Court of Punjab was wrongly assumed by the court without the complaint in writing of the public servant, namely the Tehsildar, in this case. The trial was thus without jurisdiction ab initio and the conviction cannot be maintained. The Appeal is therefore allowed and the conviction of the appellant and sentence passed on him are set aside.

CONCLUSION:

In the conclusion of the case of Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab AIR 1962 SC 1206, it can be established that the honourable Supreme Court established that ‘No court in India shall have any jurisdiction to take up any matter for prosecution without the written complaint of the public officer concerned (Section 195 of CrPC) and if taken then that matter shall be assumed to be taken up without jurisdiction and any conviction made under that prosecution shall be void.’

written by SHRIKRISHNA GOYAL, IMS LAW COLLEGE, NOIDA