Wanchoo, C.J.—This is a reference by the District Magistrate of Bikaner in a case in which one Bala Prasad was prosecuted under sec. 182 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The facts of the case may be briefly narrated. Bala Prasad sent an application to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bikaner, in April 1950, in which he said that certain persons had murdered an old woman for her money and had thrown her body in a tank and had spread a false rumour that she had left the village. He also said that the body had come afloat on the tank after three days and was quickly cremated and no information was given to the Police about it. The Dy. Inspector General of Police forwarded this application to the Sub-Inspector of Police,Gersar,who investigated the matter & came to the conclusion that the information given by Bala Prasad was false and was given with the intention of putting the persons named in the application to harassment. Thereupon, a complaint under sec. 182 I P. C. was filed against Bala Prasad in the court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate (North) Bikaner. That Magistrate acquitted the accused and thereupon there was a revision before the District Magistrate who has made this reference with the recommendation that the order of acquittal should be set aside.

3. The Magistrate had acquitted the accused on two grounds. The first was that the facts disclosed a case under sec 211 of the Indian Penal Code and not under sec. 182. The second was that the complaint should have been made by the Dy. Inspector General of Police and not by the Superintendent of Police. The District Magistrate has disagreed with the conclusion of the Magistrate concerned on both these points. I propose to examine these two points one by one.

4. The question whether an information of this nature falls under sec. 211 or under sec. 182 I.P.C. has been the subject of debate in various High Courts and the view is not unanimous. The Bombay High Court has held that criminal law makes a clear distinction between a false charge which comes under sec. 211 and false information given to the police, which comes under sec. 182. The distinction has been drawn in this manner : "If the information conveyed to the police amounts to the false institution of criminal proceedings against a defined person or amounts to the falsely charging of a defined person with an offence, then the person giving such information is guilty of an offence under sec. 211. In such a case sec. 182 is not the appropriate section under which to frame a charge. Sec. 182, when read with sec. 211, must be understood as referring to cases where the information given to the public servant falls short of amounting to an institution of criminal proceedings against a defined person and falls short of amounting to the falsely charging of defined person with an offence". Reference may be made to the case of Apaya Tatoba (14, Cr. Law Journal, 491) in support of this view.

5. But the Allahabad, Calcutta, and Madras High Courts have taken a different view. The Calcutta High Court has held that a prosecution for a false charge may lie under sec. 182 or sec. 211, but if the false charge is a serious one, the graver sec. 211 should be applied vide Emperor vs. Sarada Prasad Chatterjee (I.L.R. XXXII Calcutta, 180) The Madras High Court has also held that there is no error in a conviction under sec. 182, when the false charge made before the police is punishable under sec. 211 vide 7 Madras High Court Report, Appendix 5. The view of the Allahabad High Court was expressed by Edge, C.J. in Queen Empress vs. Raghu Tiwari (I.L.R. XV Allahabad, 363) in the following words :—

"Although it is difficult to see what case could arise under sec. 211 to which sec. 182 could not be applied yet sec. 182 would apply to a case which might not fall under sec. 211. The offence under sec. 182 is complete when false information is given to a public servant by a person who believes it to be false, but who intends thereby to cause such public se

Click Here to Read the rest of this document