Bishwanath Singh and Others vs Emperor

Allanson, J.—The five petitioners have been convicted u/s 182, I.P.C., and fined Rs. 51 each in the following circumstances:

Petitioner 1, Bishwanath Singh, was entered in the District Board Electoral Roll in 1924, his qualification purporting to be a holding of five bighas with rent of Rs. 50 under petitioners 2 to 5, the landlords. In the draft Roll for the Provincial Legislative Council his name was entered in 1920 on the same qualification. As the result of an objection the Sub-Divisional Officer, who was the revising authority, deputed a Sub-Deputy Collector to make a local inquiry. It is in connexion with the information given by them in that inquiry that the petitioners have been convicted. As a result of such information the Sub-Deputy Collector reported that Bishwanath''s name should be in the Roll. On a further objection being received, the Sub-Divisional Officer himself held an inquiry, which led to the present prosecution.

It has been found by the Courts below that Bishwanath never held land under the petitioner in village Nankar, and that the information given by the petitioners to the Sub-Deputy Collector on that point was false.

Three points of law were argued before me. The first point taken is that the statements made by the petitioners were in the nature of evidence given before an enquiring officer, and, therefore, were not such voluntary information as is contemplated by Section 182. Reliance was placed on Chinna Ramana Gowd v. Emperor [1908] 31 Mad. 506 and Mangu v. Emperor [1914] 35 P.W.R. 1914 In the former case it was held that a statement made u/s 162, Criminal P.C., in answer to questions put by a Police Officer making an investigation u/s 161 cannot be made the basis of a prosecution u/s 211, I.P.C. In the latter case it was similarly held that a statement made in such circumstances could not be the basis of a prosecution for an offence u/s 182, I.P.C. The learned Counsel relies upon the words of the learned Judge in the latter case:

The expression ''give information, in Section 182 means to volunteer information and was not, in my opinion, intended to apply to a statement made in answer to questions put by a public servant.

The learned Government Advocate relied on Queen-Empress v. Ramji Sajabarao [1886] 10 Bom. 124 where it was held that a person who had given false information to a Forest Officer in the course of an inquiry was punishable u/s 182, whether the information was volunteered by the informant or given in answer to questions put to him by the public servant. Answers given to questions put by a Police Officer in the course of an investigation may not be punishable u/s 182, but I am of opinion that the words "give information" should not be interpreted as necessarily meaning "volunteer information" that is, that it must be information on some matter which is not already under inquiry by the public servant. I am supported in that view by the above Bombay case. In the present case it does not appear whether the petitioners were, as a matter of fact, questioned in the first instance by the Sub-Deputy Collector. It is clear that if the petitioners had not appeared at the local inquiry to supply the necessary information to prove that Bishwanath held the land, his name would have been struck off the Electoral Roll. It was the information that was supplied by them and which is now found to be false which led to the restoration of his name on the Electoral Roll.

The next point urged is that the Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to make the complaint, as the Sub-Deputy Collector was not. an officer subordinate to him at the time the complaint was made. The contention is apparently based on the allegation that, at the time the complaint was laid, the Sub-Divisional Officer had ceased to be a Revising Officer for the purposes of the election, and that the complaint could only be made by the Election Officer or by the Sub-Deputy Collector himself. Whether at the time that the complaint was laid the Sub-Divisional Officer had ceased to be the Revising Officer there is nothing to show; whether the Sub-Deputy Collector was ever an Assistant Revising Officer as was contended before me, I find nothing to show; whether at the time the complaint was filed there was such a person in the province as an Election Officer does not appear. This point was not taken apparently in the lower Courts. The Sub-Deputy Collector was certainly a subordinate of the Rub-Divisional Officer, and he was apparently directed to hold the local inquiry in his capacity as a subordinate officer.

The third point is that there was no complaint such as is contemplated by Section 195(1)(a), Criminal P.C., inasmuch as the complaint was made u/s 195(4) of an offence u/s 120-B., I.P.C., namely, of a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence u/s 182. This point is very technical. The complaint shows that the petitioners were really being accused of an offence u/s 182 as well as of a criminal conspiracy to commit that offence. The complaint distinctly stated facts constituting an offence u/s 182.

The application is rejected.