K GANAPATHI BHATTA Vs. KING EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application asking this Court to revise an order of the 2nd class Magistrate of Puttur disallowing a preliminary objection of the accused to his prosecution for an offence under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code and the order of the Sessions Judge of South Canara refusing to recommend to this Court the quashing of that order.

(2.) The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are briefly as follows: On the 5th February 1907 the accused made a complaint to the Police that certain articles had been stolen from his house. On the 4th February the Police made an inquiry in consequence and at that inquiry the accused repeated his complaint and said that he suspected the complainant as the person who committed the theft. It was found that no theft took place at all in the accused s house and that his complaint was false. The complainant then made a complaint in which he alleged the information laid by the accused on the 5th February and on the 11th February 1906 was false. The case was tried by the Deputy Magistrate of Puttur and a charge was framed against the accused under Section 211 of the I.P.C. in that he instituted a false charge of theft against the complainant on the 11th February 1907. He was convicted of the offence and the conviction was affirmed by the Sessions Court but it was set aside by this Court in Cr. R.C. 405 of 1909. This Court observed "Both Courts have found that there was no theft and we assume that that finding is correct and that the information given to the Police was false to the knowledge of the accused, that is to say, that he knowing that no theft had been committed, stated that he suspected two men who were his enemies. This would clearly amount to an offence under Section 182 I.P.C., but in our opinion the accused has made no charge against the complainant within the meaning of Section 211 I.P.C. It should be stated that before the presentation of the present complaint, the complainant had applied to the Superintendent of Police, for sanction to prosecute the accused for an offence under Section 182 I.P.C. but it was refused. After the acquittal of the accused by the High Court the complainant applied again to the Superintendent of Police for sanction and obtained it.

(3.) In the present proceedings the accused is charged with an offence under Section 182 I.P.O. of which offence the accused was clearly guilty according to the opinion of this Court in Cr. R.C. 405 of 1909. The preliminary objection to the prosecution with which we are concerned in this petition is that the acquittal of the accused by this Court in Cr. R.C. 405 of 1909 constitutes a bar to the present proceedings under Section 403 (1) of the Cr.P.C. The 2nd class Magistrate disallowed this objection on the ground that the offence contemplated by Section 182 is not the same as that contemplated by Section 211 I.P.C. The two offences may not be the same as observed by him because under Section 182 it is necessary that the person who gives information to a public servant must know or believe it to be false. Under Section 211, on the other hand, the person who institutes a criminal proceeding against another need not know it to be false; it is sufficient that he should know that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge against the person. But this finding is not sufficient for disposing of the objection. A bar under Section 403 Criminal Procedure Code, operates, not only where a person has been tried for an offence and convicted or acquitted of it and is sought to be tried again for the same offence, but also where he is sough1; to hi tried "on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made on the same facts under Section 236 or for which he might have been convicted under Section 237".