ORDER Mulla, J.
1. This is an application in revision by one Bhoop Ram against whom a complaint has been made by the learned Munsif of Tilhar charging him with an offence under Section 186, Penal Code. It appears that the applicant was judgment-debtor in the case before the learned Munsif. A warrant for the attachment of his crop was issued by the learned Munsif in execution of a decree and when the Amin who was charged with the execution of that warrant proceeded to the spot and tried to execute it the applicant resisted and obstructed him. The Amin made a report to the learned Munsif and upon that report a notice under Section 476, Criminal P.C., was issued by the learned Munsif to the applicant to show cause why a complaint should not be made against him. It may be noted that an offence under Section 186 does fall within the purview of Section 195, Clause (1)(a), Criminal P.C. The learned Munsif was not therefore entitled to make an inquiry or to issue a notice under Section 476, Criminal P.C., in respect of an offence under Section 186, Penal Code. He was however under the wrong impression that he could do so, but as soon as he issued the notice the counsel for the decree-holder invited his attention to Section 195(1)(a), Criminal P.C., whereupon the learned Munsif acknowledged his mistake and dropped the proceeding. He however subsequently proceeded to make a complaint against the applicant under Section 186, Penal Code. From that order the applicant went up in appeal to the learned District Judge. That appeal has been dismissed and the applicant has now come up in revision to this Court.
2. The learned District Judge has held that the applicant had no right of appeal because the proceeding taken by the learned Munsif which ended in a complaint being made by him against the applicant was not one that could be legally held under Section 476, Criminal P.C., and further that it was not in fact a proceeding under that section inasmuch as the learned Munsif had dropped it on his mistake being pointed out to him by the earned Counsel for the decree-holder. The only question for consideration in this case is whether the view taken by the learned District Judge that the applicant had no right of appeal against the complaint made by the learned Munsif is right or wrong. I have no hesitation in agreeing entirely with the view taken by the learned District Judge. The proceeding which culminated in a complaint being made against the applicant was not in fact a proceeding under Section 476, Criminal P.C. The learned Munsif had no right to hold a proceeding under Section 476 Criminal P.C., in respect of an offence under Section 186, Penal Code. The learned Munsif, however, had a right in law to make a complaint against the applicant for an offence under Section 186, Penal Code, because it is provided by Section 195, Clause (1)(a), Criminal P.C., that the public servant concerned or any officer to whom he is subordinate can make a complaint in respect of offences mentioned therein which include an offence under Section 186, Penal Code. I would only add this to the observations made by the learned District Judge that as the learned Munsif had a power given to him by the law to make a complaint against the applicant for an offence under Section 186, Penal Code, the act which he committed must be attributed to that valid power even though he might have wrongly thought in the beginning that he could institute a proceeding under Section 476, Criminal P.C. The result therefore is that I see no reason to interfere and dismiss this application.