SARJU SARUN Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of the case, out of which this application for revision has arisen, are briefly as follows :--THE house of one Musammat Bahni was broken into and certain, property stolen during her absence. THE matter was reported to the police who commenced an inquiry. Suspicion was apparently thrown upon two persons, Nandu and Kundan, who in their turn suggested that the police should make inquiries from persons who were accustomed to visit the lady. In the course of the inquiry the police officer sent for the applicant Sarju and examined him. In answer to questions put by the police officer, he made certain statements suggesting that Nandu and Kundan had committed the theft and that they had melted down certain stolen property in their house that same night. In respect of this statement he was prosecuted and convicted by the joint Magistrate of the offence of defamation and was sentenced to a, fine of Rs. 50. On appeal the Sessions Judge has held that the facts did not constitute the offence of defamation, has acquitted him of that offence, but has on those some facts convicted him of an offence under Section 203, Indian Penal Code, and maintained the fine. THE sole point raised in the present application is that the facts found do not constitute an offence under Section 203, Indian Penal Code. In my opinion, this contention is well-founded. THE evidence of the police officer who made the inquiry was taken by the Sessions Judge. He distinctly states that the applicant volunteered no information, that he examined him as a witness, and he made statements in reply to the questions put to him. Section 203 lays down that, however, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, gives any information respecting that offence, which he knows or believes to be false, shall be punished etc. Section 203 clearly was not intended by the legislature to apply to the case of a person who gives false evidence as a witness to the police in the course of their investigation, and that only in reply to questions put to him. It clearly contemplates information volunteered by some person. In my opinion, the conviction under Section 203 is bad. I, therefore, set it aside. THE fine, if paid, will be refunded.