Imandy Appalaswami vs Emperor

Oldfield, J.—It is first argued with reference to K. Ganapathi Bhotta''s case 19 Ind. Cas. 310 : 24 M.L.J. 463 : 13 M.L.T. 360 : 14 Cri.

L.J. 214 : 36 M. 308 that the accused, who has been placed on his trial on a charge of an offence punishable u/s 211, Indian Penal Code, cannot

be tried again for one punishable u/s 182, Indian Penal Code. It was for the accused to establish the facts necessary for the application of this

authority; and we cannot find on the record anything to show that he was acquitted in the previous proceedings and not merely discharged. In these

circumstances the plea has not been established.

Next, it is urged that Section 182 applies only to a complaint to a public servant when it is made with the intention of inducing such public

servant to take action of a sort which only a public servant of the description in question could take and which would not be open to a private

individual. In illustration (a) to Section 182 the action expected to be taken by the public servant was simply dismissal of a subordinate and any

master could do the same. This illustration is, therefore, irreconcilable with accused''s interpretation of the section which must be rejected.

The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

Tyabji, J.

I agree that the plea of previous acquittal is not made out.

On the facts proved I think the conviction was justified because the accused gave to a public servant, (the Sub-Postmaster) information which

the accused knew to be false intending thereby to cause the Sub-Postmaster to do something (viz. sending information to the Police) which he

ought not to have done if the true state of facts were known by him. It is argued that the Sub-Postmaster did not send information to the Police in

his official capacity. I will assume that that would be relevant to the question. I do not express any opinion on this point. The act referred to in

illustration (a) to the section as likely to be brought about by the false information is dismissal by the Magistrate'' of his subordinate. That is clearly

an official act that. could be done by the Magistrate only as a Magistrate. It seems to me however, that the information by the Sub-Postmaster in

the present case was sent by him in his official capacity.

The petition is, therefore, dismissed.