Joint complaint maintainable where connected offences arise from one occurrence; singular wording in examination provision did not invalidate procedure.

A joint complaint by two persons alleging connected offences arising from the same occurrence was treated as legally maintainable. The absence of an express prohibition in the Code, together with the definition of complaint, meant it need not be made by one person alone. The use of the singular term "complainant" in Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was not decisive, because the General Clauses Act permits the singular to include the plural unless the context requires otherwise. Examination of both complainants one after another was substantial compliance, and no prejudice to the accused was shown.

---

---

Issues: Whether a joint complaint by two persons was maintainable and whether the Magistrate was bound to treat the complaint as illegal for want of a separate examination of the complainants under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

Analysis: The complaint was made jointly by two persons alleging connected offences arising out of the same occurrence. There was no express prohibition in the Code against such a complaint, and the definition of complaint did not require it to be made by one person only. The reference to a complainant in the singular in Section 200 was not treated as decisive because, under Section 13 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the singular includes the plural unless the context requires otherwise. The examination of both complainants one after another without delay was regarded as substantial compliance with the statutory requirement, and no prejudice to the accused was shown.

Conclusion: A joint complaint was held to be legally permissible, the procedure adopted by the Magistrate was held to be valid, and the order of acquittal was rightly set aside.

---