The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 211, I.P.C. in relation to false charges and the necessity of a complaint by the Court for prosecution under Section 211, I.P.C.

Beasley, C.J. and Walsh, J.

1. On 19th October 1929 at about 6 p.m. or a little earlier a man named Tirumeni Servai was stabbed in the neck at Appantirupathi and died almost immediately. One Malayalam alias Veeranan Ambalam was tried for that offence in the Sessions Court of Madura, convicted of it and sentenced to transportation for life. It was clearly established that Tirumeni Servai was stabbed in a mantapam by the side of the road and this fact is of considerable importance. Shortly after 9 p.m. on the same day Kodangi alias Arunachalam Servai a nephew of the deceased sent a telegram to the District Superintendent of Police at Madura North. It is worded as follows:

Self and Tirumeni Servai went to Alagarkoil Road, Alagapuri. Our enemies, Madar Moideen older brothers son of Ottakundi Mohamed Ganis sisters son Raja, Rowther, Anupanadhi Alagumlai Pillai, Vellayakundram Manthayans son Malayalam, these four stabbed Tirumeni Servai. Tirumeni Servai lying unconscious on Appantirupathi road. Pray take immediate steps. Arunachalam Servai, Kilavadampoki Street.

2. The fourth name mentioned in the telegram is that of the convicted man. This telegram was later on for obvious reasons treated as a false document and no charge was brought against the other three persons mentioned in the telegram. The only statement in the telegram that was true was that Tirumeni Servai had been stabbed by Malayalam. The evidence shows that the murder could not have taken place where the respondent in this petition stated in his telegram that it had. It clearly took place in the mantapam. The evidence also shows that the respondent who was P. W. 20 in the Sessions case was not present at the stabbing. It also clearly shows that the other three persons mentioned in the telegram did not stab the decesed. In the committing Magistrates Court, the respondent admitted that the contents of the telegram were not true. This admission he repeated in the Sessions Court where the telegram was admitted in evidence. He explained that he got from P. W. 22 a message sent by means of a bus driver who was not a witness in the case giving a brief account of the occurrence and said that he thought that other enemies of the deceased besides Malayalam must have been involved and that therefore he dispatched that telegram. He admitted that he was in Madura at the time of the occurrence and therefore did not see anything of the stabbing. The police from the beginning treated the respondents statement as deliberately false. The discovery of blood on the floor in the north-east corner of the mantapam and a lot of blood on the platform together with the evidence of some of the witnesses conclusively proved that the respondents account was false. The convicted man filed Criminal Appeal No. 178 of 1930 against his conviction and the appeal came before the Criminal Bench as at present constituted. The appeal was dismissed but we took a very serious view of the conduct of the respondent and in our judgment made the following order:

As the evidence in this case in our opinion clearly discloses conduct which renders P. W. 20 Kodangi alias Arunachalam Servai liable to criminal proceedings we direct that notice be served upon him calling upon him to show cause before us why a complaint charging him with an offence Under Section 211, I.P.C., should not be made by us Under Section 476, Criminal P.C. Notice returnable on 28th August 1930.

3. On 4th September 1930 Mr. Jayarama Ayyar on behalf of the respondent appeared and contended that the Criminal Bench hearing the appeal was not competent to make any such order Under Section 476, Criminal P.C. His contention was that the offence alleged to have been committed by the respondent, (namely, that with intent to cause injury to the persons falsely accused in the telegram and knowing that there was no just or lawful ground for any such accusation, he falsely charged them with having committed the offence of murder) was not committed in or in rel