GOPAL CHANDRA MANDAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner hag been convicted by a Presidency Magistrate under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six weeks.

(2.) A false information, the furnishing of which to a public servant was the subject matter of the charge, was given by the petitioner and is contained in exhibit 2. That petition was drafted on his instructions by a pleader who has been examined as a witness in the case. The petition was addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, detective Department, Lal Bazar, and contained allegations against the petitioner's master Jogendra Nath Das. The allegations related to the conduct of Jogendra as respects a lottery ticket said to have been purchased by the petitioner. It has suggested that the petitioner had obtained prize money to the extent of Rs. 22000/- which was said to have been deposited in a Bank, Some time later the petitioner was put into police custody upon certain allegations and there he was tortured and compelled to sign two cheques for withdrawal of his money from the Bank. In these circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner was requested to institute an enquiry. As the result of the enquiry held, it was found that the allegations made in the petition against Jogendra were all false and that they had been made with intent to cause a public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of others.

(3.) A complaint was accordingly filed by Sub-Inspector Paramanik who held the enquiry into the allegations made by the petitioner; but this complaint was later withdrawn by a superior officer of police, B.B. Dey and on the 15th February 1956, the present complaint was filed by the Deputy Commissioner of the Detective Department and the Prosecution was thus commenced. The petitioner pleaded innocence, and his case appears to be that the allegations made in exhibit 2 were substantially true. The learned Magistrate found, however, that the allegations made by the petitioner in exhibit 2 were deliberately false and made with intent to use the lawful power of a public servant to the injury of others, and in that view, convicted and sentenced the petitioner as stated above.