The Public Prosecutor vs Katta Prakasam

Madhavan Nair, J.—These are two appeals by the Crown against the acquittal by the Sessions Judge of Kistna of Katta Prakasam,

accused in C.C. No. 20 of 1922, and Annamraju, accused in C.C. No. 21 of 1922, of an offence u/s 182, Indian Penal Code.

One Gangamma, complainant in a case pending before the First Class Bench Magistrate of Masulipatam, applied before the District Magistrate

for a transfer of the case. This application was supported by two affidavits presented by the com-plainark''s pleader, one by Katta Prakasam, the

son of the complainant, and the other by Annamraju, a stranger, which contained certain allegations against the President of the Bench of

Magistrates which were on subsequent enquiry found to be false. The transfer application was rejected and the two accused were charged before

the Sub-divisional 1st Class Magistrate, Gudivada, with having committed offences u/s 182, Indian Penal Code. The Sub-divisional Magistrate on

going into the evidence found that the accused in the two cases gave false information to a public servant within the meaning of Section 182, Indian

Penal Code, and sentenced each of them to a fine of Rs. 100 or six weeks'' rigorous imprisonment. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge found

that the allegations were false, but set aside the convictions and acquitted the accused.

In our opinion, the orders of the learned Sessions Judge acquitting the accused are right though not for the reasons given by him. In Emperor v.

Matan ILR (1910) A 163, the decision followed by the Sessions Judge, it was pointed out that statements made by an accused person being

privileged cannot be considered to be ""information"" given to a public servant and, consequently, it was there held that an accused, who in support

of his application for the transfer of the case against him to some other Magistrate makes unfounded and defamatory allegations against the trying

Magistrate, cannot be convicted in respect of the allegations u/s 182, Indian Penal Code. That decision is obviously inapplicable to the present

cases inasmuch as the statements in the affidavits were made by persons who were not accused in the case at the time when they made the

statements. The word ""information"" is not denned in the Indian Penal Code or in the Criminal Procedure Code. Assuming that the statements in

question amount to "" information,"" it seems to us that it cannot be held that it was the accused who gave the information to the public servant within

the meaning of Section 182, Indian Penal Code. The point for decision is not quite free from difficulty. In Queen-Em-press v. Santaram Ratan

Lal''s unreported Criminal Cases of the Bombay High Court, page 315, it is stated that ""the accused, a liquor shopman at India, reported to his

master that the Abkari Inspector had asked him for money and had watered some liquor in the shop with a view to getting him into trouble. The

master as intended by the shopman reported the matter to the Collector, who after causing enquiry to be made gave the Abkari Inspector

permission u/s 195(a), Criminal Procedure Code, to prosecute the shopman u/s 182, Indian Penal Code, in order to clear his own character."" It

was held by the Bombay High Court, on a reference made by the District Magistrate that the accused was not guilty of an offence against Section

182, Indian Penal Code, i.e., of giving false information to a public servant with intent to cause injury, inasmuch as his master to whom he gave

certain information alleged to be false was not a public servant.

In the two appeals before us it is not quite clear as into whose hands the affidavits were given by the accused but a perusal of the evidence

would show that these affidavits must be considered to have been given to the complainant''s pleader on her behalf. It was open to the

complainant, Gangamma, to instruct the pleader not to file these affidavits if she liked. Following the Bombay decision above quoted, we hold that

information was not given by these accused to a public servant in these appeals Avithin the meaning of Section 182, Indian Penal Code.

In Criminal Appeal No. 1107 of 1923 in which the accused is Gangamma''s son, Katta Prakasam, it was argued by Mr. Ethiraj for the Public

Prosecutor that, since the statements were made by her son to the pleader on her behalf, it must be considered that he himself made those

statements in the Court when the affidavit was filed. But it must be remembered that the pleader is not the agent of her son but represents his

mother; no distinction could, therefore, be made between the case of the son, viz., Katta Prakasam, and that of the stranger.

We dismiss both the appeals.