BODHAN GARAIN Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been convicted under Section 182, I.P.C., and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 50. His appeal against the conviction was dismissed. In the course of the investigation of a dacoity the petitioner informed the Sub-Inspector of police who was conducting it that he had recognized a particular person among the dacoits with the result that the man was arrested and kept in confinement for a week. It has been established that he was elsewhere when the dacoity was committed and that the petitioner had cause for enmity against him. I see no reason to differ from the findings of the Courts below on the facts. The plea taken on behalf of the petitioner that he might have made an honest mistake of identification is negatived by the fact that the man whom he was accusing was his enemy.

(2.) I have no doubt that it was malice which prompted him to make a false statement to the police. The only question for consideration is whether he could be legally convicted Under Section 182 in respect of a statement made to a police officer in the course of an investigation. It was contended that the word "information" in Section 182 should be understood to refer only to a first information recorded under Section 154, Criminal P.C. There is no reason why the meaning of the word should be so restricted. It is used in the section with reference not to a police officer in particular but to any public servant.

(3.) It was next argued that the information cannot be made the subject of a charge under Section 182, because it would not be admissible in evidence by reason of the provisions of Section 162, Criminal P.C. This consideration does not seem to me to be relevant, the question of the admissibility of the statement as evidence does not arise. It has been held by this Court in an unreported case Hazari Pande V/s. Emperor Cr. Rev. No. 537 of 1926, that Section 182 is applicable to a statement made during the investigation of a case. The petitioner has been rightly convicted and the application must be dismissed. He will surrender to his bail to undergo the rest of this sentence.