https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465464 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. en-us Thu, 30 Apr 1942 00:00:00 +0630 Fri, 26 Dec 2025 10:23:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465464 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 30 Apr 1942 00:00:00 +0630 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465464