Mosafir Singh vs Emperor

Wort, J.—This rule is directed against the conviction of the petitioner u/s 182, I.P.C. He appears to have gone to the thana and informed the police that a bull buffalo was missing. This was quite false because it was subsequently established that he had already sold the animal to one Dhiba Dusadh for a sum of Rs. 30.

The police however suspecting that an offence had been committed proceeded to inquire into the matter, and the Inspector of Police directed a case u/s 379, I.P.C.

From the judgments of the Courts below it would appear that what was suspected in the case was that the petitioner had a mind to eventually get up a case against Shiba Dusadh for some reason or other and that his visit to the thana, stating the fact of the missing buffalo, was the first link in the chain of his scheme.

However the facts which were stated to the police disclosed no offence either cognizable or noncognizable and therefore it did not come within the mischief of Section 182, I.P.C. Reliance is placed upon the case of Algoo Lal v. Emperor 57 Ind.Cas. 96. decided by Piggott, J. There the learned Judge states:

The report alleging the disappearance of a bullock not being the report of a cognizable offence and not in itself calling for any action on the part of the police officer to whom it was made, falls short of fulfilling the conditions necessary to justify a conviction u/s 182, I.P.C.

I feel constrained in the circumstances of this case to follow the decision given in the case just cited, and that being so, the conviction must be set aside and the Rule made absolute.