Mallappa Reddi and Another vs Emperor

Two points have been raised on behalf of the Petitioners, first that there was no evidence of a false charge made by the first and fourth accused

within the meaning of Section 211 of the Penal Code, secondly that the fourth accused ought not to have been tried together with accused Nos. 1

and 3. As regards the first point it has been laid down by this Court in a recent case that the test to apply is,-did the person who makes the charge

intend to set the criminal law in motion against the person against whom the charge is made. It seems perfectly clear, on the evidence in this case,

that the first accused, when he stated to a Police officer that certain of the prosecution witnesses had stolen his goats, intended to set the criminal

law in motion against these persons. The fact that the statement made by the accused to the Police officer was not reduced to writing in

accordance with the requirements of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, does not, to my mind, prevent the statement made from

being a false charge within the meaning of the Section. I can find no authority for placing this narrow construction on the words ""falsely charged

and on principle I can find no good reason for adopting such a construction.

As regards the fourth accused, the case is much stronger inas-much as the charge made by him was reduced into writing and signed by him.

I think there was evidence that accused, Nos. 1 and 4 ""falsely charged"" the prosecution witnesses within the meaning of Section 211 of the

Code.

As regards the question of misjoinder it is true the false charge of stealing goats was made by the first accused on one day and by the fourth

accused on the following day. I think the offence was the same, viz., a false charge that, certain persons stole certain goats and that the first and

fourth accused were properly tried together.

As regards the sentence I think a distinction can be drawn between the case of the first and fourth accused. The fourth accused persisted in the

charge. The first withdrew it, or at any rate made up his mind not to proceed with it at a very early stage.

In the case of the first accused I reduce the sentence of eighteen months'' rigorous imprisonment to nine months'' rigorous imprisonment.

As regards the fourth accused the petition is dismissed.