Excise Inspector reports can count as complaints, but Sessions-triable offences still require mandatory committal procedure.

Reports filed by Excise Inspectors concerning offences under the Abkari Act were treated as complaints under procedural law, because the statutory scheme empowered the Abkari Officer to search, seize, arrest and forward a report to the Magistrate. The absence of an express reference to Section 57A did not by itself negate competence to place the offence before the court. Earlier rulings were distinguished as involving officers without competence. Where the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, however, the Magistrate must still follow the mandatory committal procedure, including inquiry requirements before commitment.

---

---

Issues: Whether reports filed by Excise Inspectors in respect of offences under Section 57A of the Abkari Act could be treated as complaints so as to sustain cognizance by the Magistrate, and whether the proceedings were liable to be quashed for want of authority or procedural compliance.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under the Abkari Act authorised the relevant Abkari Officer to search, seize, arrest and forward a report to the Magistrate. The fact that Section 57A was not expressly mentioned in the provisions relied on by the petitioners did not deprive the Excise Inspector of competence to bring the offence to the notice of the court. The report filed by the Excise Inspector could be treated as a complaint within the meaning of the procedural law, and the Magistrate was competent to take cognizance on that basis. The earlier decisions relied on by the petitioners were distinguished because they concerned investigation by officers lacking competence, whereas in the present case no such incompetence existed. At the same time, where the offence was triable exclusively by the Court of Session, the Magistrate was required to follow the mandatory procedure relating to inquiry before committal.

Conclusion: The reports filed by the Excise Inspectors were validly treated as complaints, cognizance was competent, and the prayer to quash the proceedings was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The criminal miscellaneous cases were disposed of with the challenge to the proceedings failing, and the pending matters were required to be dealt with in accordance with the procedural directions indicated in the order.

---