Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 500, 193

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 198

  Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Ss. 500 & 193--Contention- that defamatory description of petitioner as Mochi in a complaint filed against: lint in Court fell within purview of S. 193 and as such only trial Magistrate should have filed complaint under S. 476, Cr. P. C. and petitioner could not directly file complaint on that behalf for an offence under S. 500, P. P. C--Held, misconceived and not sustainable in law--Offence under S. 500," P. P. C. could not be taken cognizance of except on complaint of aggrieved person- Criminal Procedure. Code (V of 1898), S. 198.   ORDER The facts giving rise to this case are that Syed Ishtiaq Hussain, petitioner filed a complaint under section 500, P. P. C., against'. Syed Niaz Ali respondent No. 1, on the ground that in an earlier complaint case filed by the latter he had described the petitioner as a cobbler whereas he wag actually a Syed by caste. In defence, the respondent relied on a report Exh. D. A. made by the Central record office on an application of the respondent wherein one Nathu Shah, son of Lal Shah, an alleged ancestor of the petitioner, was described as a Mochi. This report appears to have been relied upon by the Collector in a Lambardar case, in a judgment, dated the 3rd of January 1963, (Exh. D. B.). However, having regard to the evidence on the record before him the learned trial Magistrate convicted the respondent under section 500, P. P. C., with an award of a fine of Rs. 100 or one month's imprisonment in default of payment thereof. The respondent challenged this order in the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sargodha, who took the view that the alleged offence committed by the respondent by mis-describing the petitioner as a Mochi fell within the purview of section 193, P. P, C. and as such the learned trial Magistrate should have filed a complaint in writing under section 476, Cr. P. C. These provisions of law having been by-passed according to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, the trial Magistrate had-no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the private complaint filed by the petitioner. Accordingly he set aside the order and acquitted the respondent. Feeling aggrieved the…