Complaint competence under Section 195 CrPC requires statutory appellate authority, while Bhopal court had territorial jurisdiction.

Section 195(1)(b) CrPC permits a complaint for offences relating to court proceedings only by the concerned court, its authorised officer, or a court to which appeals ordinarily lie under the substantive statutory scheme; administrative rank alone is insufficient. Applying that principle, the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) was not competent to lodge the complaint because the Income-tax Act did not make that office the relevant appellate forum, and the complaint was therefore invalid. On territorial jurisdiction, the composite search operations and the alleged false statement had a sufficient nexus with Bhopal, so the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal could entertain the complaint and take cognizance. The prosecution nevertheless failed because the complaint was instituted by an incompetent authority.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) was competent to lodge the complaint under Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (ii) Whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and take cognizance.

Issue (i): Whether the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) was competent to lodge the complaint under Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Section 195(1)(b) is a restrictive provision and a complaint for offences committed in relation to a proceeding in court can be made only by the concerned court, by its authorised officer, or by a court to which it is subordinate within the meaning of Section 195(4). Subordination depends on the court or forum to which appeals ordinarily lie, and not on mere administrative hierarchy or superior rank. On a conjoint reading of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Deputy Director of Income Tax was not the appellate forum from the orders or actions of the Income Tax Officers who conducted the search; the statute identified the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) as the relevant appellate authority. The notification under Section 118 could not override the statutory scheme or create appellate jurisdiction by implication.

Conclusion: The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) was not competent to lodge the complaint, and the complaint was invalid.

Issue (ii): Whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and take cognizance.

Analysis: Sections 177, 178 and 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 recognise not only the ordinary rule of territorial jurisdiction but also exceptions where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or consists of several acts done in different local areas. The search operations at Bhopal and Aurangabad formed a single composite exercise, the appellants maintained residences and filed returns at Bhopal, and the alleged false statement had a nexus with that proceeding. In these circumstances, part of the offence was capable of being tried at Bhopal.

Conclusion: The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal had territorial jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution failed because the complaint was instituted by an authority incompetent under Section 195 of the Code, and the impugned proceedings were set aside notwithstanding the finding on territorial jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: For a valid complaint under Section 195(1)(b) of the Code, the complainant must be the court before which the offence was committed, its authorised officer, or a court to which appeals ordinarily lie from that court under the substantive statutory scheme; superior administrative rank alone is insufficient.

---