Cognizance on complaint under section 200 determines appeal rights and preserves later police inquiry as a section 202 irregularity.

A complaint case is treated as instituted on a complaint when the Magistrate has already taken cognizance under section 200 and examined the complainant on oath; a later police direction is then referable to section 202, not section 156(3). On that basis, the complainant's appeal against acquittal under section 417(3) was competent. The High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal because it applied the correct approach to interference with acquittal and found the prosecution case proved on the evidence. The Magistrate's direction to police did not deprive the court of jurisdiction; at most it was an irregularity causing no failure of justice, so the conviction and sentence were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the complaint case was instituted on a complaint so as to attract the complainant's right of appeal against acquittal under section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898; (ii) whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal and convicting the accused on the evidence; and (iii) whether the Magistrate's direction to the police to institute a case rendered the subsequent proceedings void for want of jurisdiction.

Issue (i): whether the complaint case was instituted on a complaint so as to attract the complainant's right of appeal against acquittal under section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

Analysis: A case is instituted when the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence. A complaint under section 200, followed by examination of the complainant on oath, shows cognizance on the complaint. If, after such cognizance, the Magistrate directs police action, it is referable to section 202 and not to section 156(3). The Magistrate's order and subsequent examination established that cognizance had already been taken on the complaint before the police report was received.

Conclusion: The case was instituted on the complaint, and the appeal under section 417(3) was competent.

Issue (ii): whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal and convicting the accused on the evidence

Analysis: Interference with an acquittal is warranted where the trial court's appreciation of evidence is unsound and results in a serious failure of justice. The High Court applied the correct principles, scrutinised the evidence fully, and found that the prosecution case was established. No basis was shown to disturb that evaluation.

Conclusion: The High Court was justified in setting aside the acquittal and convicting the appellants.

Issue (iii): whether the Magistrate's direction to the police to institute a case rendered the subsequent proceedings void for want of jurisdiction

Analysis: Once cognizance had been taken on the complaint, the Magistrate could not direct investigation under section 156(3); any police action thereafter had to be treated in law as an inquiry or investigation under section 202. The wording of the order did not vitiate the proceedings, and at most amounted to an irregularity which caused no failure of justice.

Conclusion: The Magistrate did not act without jurisdiction, and the subsequent proceedings were not void.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court were sustained, and the appeal failed in entirety.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a Magistrate, after examining a complainant under section 200, has already taken cognizance of the offence, a later police inquiry ordered in substance falls under section 202 and does not convert the case into one instituted on a police report; an irregularity in such direction does not vitiate the proceedings absent failure of justice.

---