Daulat Ram vs State Of Punjab

Rewritten Version Notice: This is a rewritten version of the original judgment.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 126 of 1960

Decision Date: 25 January, 1962

Coram: M. Hidayatullah, J. L. Kapur, Raghubar Dayal

In the matter titled Daulat Ram versus State of Punjab, the Supreme Court of India delivered its judgment on the twenty‑fifth day of January, 1962. The opinion was authored by Justice M. Hidayatullah, who was joined on the bench by Justice J. L. Kapur and Justice Raghubar Dayal. The case is reported in the 1962 volume of the All India Reporter at page 1206 and also appears in the 1962 Supplement to the Supreme Court Reporter (Second Series) at page 812. The statutes relevant to the dispute were Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act XLV of 1860), and Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898). The headnote of the judgment summarizes that the appellant, who occupied the position of Patwari, had written a letter to his supervising Tehsildar alleging that he had been robbed of official documents and money. Subsequent police investigation found the allegations to be false. The Tehsildar then requested that the police prepare a “calendar,” and the police proceeded to file a prosecution against the appellant under Section 182 of the Penal Code. However, the required written complaint by the public servant, as mandated by Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was not filed; instead, the police attached the Tehsildar’s letter requesting the calendar to the charge‑sheet. The Court held that for a prosecution under Section 195, it is essential that the public servant concerned himself lodge a written complaint, because only on such complaint can the court take cognizance of the offence; absent that, the trial is deemed to have been without jurisdiction from the beginning. The Court further observed that Section 182 does not obligate the authorities to act on every report made to a public servant; the offence is consummated when the report is made and the person making the report honestly believes that some action will follow.

The substantive judgment was rendered under the criminal appellate jurisdiction, specifically Criminal Appeal No. 126 of 1960. The appeal was permitted by special leave after the Punjab High Court at Chandigarh dismissed the appellant’s revision application in Criminal Revision No. 1445 of 1959. Counsel for the appellant was described as representing the petitioner, while counsel for the respondent represented the State. The Court noted that the appellant, Daulat Ram, had been prosecuted under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three months’ imprisonment. His application for revision before the High Court had been dismissed in limine, prompting him to seek special leave before the Supreme Court. At the time of the incident, the appellant was employed as a Patwari. On the eighteenth of August, 1958, he composed a letter addressed to the Tehsildar of Pathankot, stating that on the preceding day he had been assaulted by two individuals named Hans Raj and Kans Raj, who had severely beaten him and robbed him of certain official papers and a sum of money that was partially his own and partially that of the Government. The letter concluded by indicating that it was written merely for the Tehsildar’s information. The subsequent procedural steps and the Court’s analysis of the statutory requirements formed the basis of the decision rendered on the twenty‑fifth of January, 1962.

The appellant’s letter to the Tehsildar indicated that a portion of the money and papers mentioned in the letter belonged to him personally, while the remainder belonged to the Government. At the conclusion of that letter he wrote that the communication was intended merely for his own information. Contrary to his expectation, the Tehsildar forwarded the letter to the Sub‑Divisional Officer, who subsequently sent it to the police. The police examined the allegations contained in the letter and reported that those allegations were false. In the meantime, the appellant appears to have reached a settlement with the two individuals, Hans Raj and Kans Raj, and he wrote a second letter stating that, as they were his relatives and he had recovered the papers and money, any proceedings, if any, should be dropped and the recovered items should be placed in the record room. Despite this compromise, the matter proceeded onward. When the police report confirming that the original allegations were false reached the Tehsildar, the Tehsildar instructed the police to prepare a “calendar.” Nevertheless, the police instituted a prosecution against the appellant under section 182 of the Indian Penal Code. After a proper trial, the appellant was convicted of that offence and was sentenced to three months’ rigorous imprisonment. His subsequent appeal and revision were dismissed, and it has been reported that he has already served the entire term of his sentence.

The sole issue for determination is whether a written complaint, as mandated by section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, was filed by the public servant concerned. The public servant approached by the appellant was clearly the Tehsildar. Whether the appellant intended the Tehsildar to act on the letter is immaterial; the fact remains that he presented the Tehsildar with a false statement of facts. By accusing Hans Raj and Kans Raj of offences under the Penal Code, the appellant sought action from his superior officer, even though the letter claimed to be only for information. The Court may assume that the appellant expected some action to follow. The appellant’s second letter, which sought to have the matter withdrawn and the documents consigned to the record room, further indicates that he anticipated action from his superior.

The question, therefore, is whether section 195 imposes a duty on the Tehsildar to file a written complaint against the appellant, rather than allowing the court to be triggered solely by a police charge‑sheet. Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code is explicit. It reads: “(1) No Court shall take cognizance‑(a) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 of the Indian Penal Code, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned, or of some other public servant to whom he is subordinate;”. The language of the provision, which requires a written complaint by the public servant concerned and bars any court from taking cognizance except on such a complaint, makes clear that in every case the court must be moved by the appropriate public servant.

The Court explained that the legal provision requires the case to be initiated by the appropriate public servant. Consequently, it was necessary to decide whether the Tehsildar was the public servant concerned and, if he had not filed a written complaint, whether the police‑filed charge sheet complied with section 195. The expression “no court shall take cognizance” has been interpreted on several occasions as establishing an absolute bar to a court assuming jurisdiction except in the manner expressly provided by the statute. In this matter, the alleged offence under section 182 of the Indian Penal Code was complete at the moment the appellant approached the Tehsildar for action. Section 182 does not obligate the public servant to take action merely because the complainant knows or believes that action will be taken. Therefore, if the appellant honestly believed that the Tehsildar would act, and had no reason to doubt such action, the offence under section 182 was deemed to have occurred. Consequently, for any prosecution to proceed, the Tehsildar, as the public servant concerned, should have filed a written complaint. The record, however, shows that the Tehsildar never filed such a complaint and that the charge sheet was submitted by the Station House Officer. Counsel for the State attempted to argue that section 195 had been complied with because, after the allegations were dismissed, the Superintendent of Police sent a letter to the Tehsildar requesting a ‘calendar’. The State further submitted that this letter was filed together with the charge sheet and that such filing satisfied the requirements of section 195. The Court found this argument unconvincing, holding that the provision expressly demands a written complaint from the public servant concerned, which was absent in the present case. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the court had wrongly assumed cognizance without the required written complaint from the Tehsildar, rendering the trial jurisdictionally defective from the outset. The Court therefore allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant, and ordered that the appeal be permitted.