IMANDY APPALASWAMI Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is first argued with reference to K. Ganapathi Bhotta s case 19 Ind. Cas. 310 : 24 M.L.J. 463 : 13 M.L.T. 360 : 14 Cr. L.J. 214 : 36 M. 308 that the accused, who has been placed on his trial on a charge of an offence punishable under Section 211, Indian Penal Code, cannot be tried again for one punishable under Section 182, Indian Penal Code. It was for the accused to establish the facts necessary for the application of this authority; and we cannot find on the record anything to show that he was acquitted in the previous proceedings and not merely discharged. In these circumstances the plea has not been established.

(2.) Next, it is urged that Section 182 applies only to a complaint to a public servant when it is made with the intention of inducing such public servant to take action of a sort which only a public servant of the description in question could take and which would not be open to a private individual. In illustration (a) to Section 182 the action expected to be taken by the public servant was simply dismissal of a subordinate and any master could do the same. This illustration is, therefore, irreconcilable with accused s interpretation of the section which must be rejected.

(3.) The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Tyabji, J.