Mullick, J.[After stating facts as set out above the judgment proceeded to the discussion of evidence as follows:]

2. Prosecution witness Ram Lall Singh, a peon in the service of the Rani of Deo, who was at the time residing with her uncle Jagat Prasad, had been sleeping in the hut after his midday meal. He says that about 4 p.m. he got up and went to wash his face. Then came the dust storm and immediately afterwards he found that the hut was on fire. He suggests that the fire came from the embers in the open fireplace where he had cooked his food and near which there was a quantity of jute sticks. He says that Munsaf Ram arrived after the hut was completely burnt out or about five minutes after the fire began, and that he assisted in extinguishing the fire in a neighbouring house, namely that of Nanki Dusadin, to which the fire had spread.

3. Ram Lal is corroborated by Jawadhan whose house is immediately east of the hut.

4. Surajnath Pathak, who is Jagat Prasads priest and was in the Thakurbari about 30 paces to the west, Ramdhari Lohar, Jamaluddin, the grandson of Jawadhan, and Mt. Nanki also corroborate Ram Lal.

5. All these witnesses prove that Munsaf Ram did not set fire to the hut, that he came after the fire began and that he assisted in putting it out.

6. The witness Lalji proves that at the time of the fire Munsaf Ram was working with other coolies at a wall which was being built for his master Ram Sunder Singh to the west of the hut, and that on hearing shouts of "Fire" Munsaf ran to the place, and that he returned about half an hour later; This witness states that the hut is some distance from where he was working and he did not go to it.

7. In my opinion the learned Sessions Judge was right in holding that Munsaf did not set fire to the hut and that the appellants information to the Police was maliciously false.

8. With regard to ownership of the hut, the evidence is that it was built by the Ranis men with wood, straw and leaves taken from Jagat Prasads jungle. At that time the Rani had already given Gajadhar Prasad the managership of her properties in the Gaya District and the prosecution witnesses seem to have looked upon the Ranis servants as Gajadhars servants. It appears that after Gajadhar obtained the zerpishgi from Jagat Prasad he appointed one Audh Behari as his Dewan at Burhibir for making collections. About 8 days before the fire the appellant Parmeshwar succeeded Audh Behari. The hut in question was built about two months before the fire. Gajadbars own servants used at first to live in a tent, but after the hut was built Ram Lal Singh and Bulaki Singh, two peons of the Rani, and Jhari Singh, the Tahsildar of Gajadhar, used to sleep in it. Ram Lal says that he used at first to sleep in a room in Jagat Prasads house which is to the west, but owing to shortness of accommodation he came over to the newly built hut. He was paid by the Rani through her Manager Gajadhar Prasad, and it is clear from the evidence of the Chaukidar Faujdar that the villagers made no distinction between the servants of Gajadhar and the servants of the Rani.

9. I think, therefore, that it is established that the but was not the property of Gajadhar and in the circumstances it is difficult to see why Munsaf Ram, the servant of Ramsunder, should set fire to it.

10. In the first information it is stated that the value of the hut was Rs. 25 and that the articles destroyed consisted of rice, dal, salt, clothes and aluminium pots worth Rs. 21. it is not stated to whom these properties belonged, but the evidence is that some of them belonged to Ram Lal Singh and the constable Ram Tewari. Jhari Singh, the Tahsildar, was at Daltonganj that day with his master Gajadhar Prasad who had come there from Gaya. Bulaki was also away and it does not appear that any property belonging to Gajadhars own servants was in the hut. Parameshwar certainly had nothing there. That this should have been so is natural for Parmeshwar was only appointed 8 days before the fire and he had only paid one visit to Burhibir. I accept the statement of Ram Lal when be says that Parmeshwar came to Burhibir on Sunday the 30th Baisakh, and went away on the next day, and that the fire took place the following Wednesday. Parameshwar Lals statement that he was in the hut at the time of the fire is in my opinion, wholly and intentionally false. I cannot accept his explanation that he could not leave the village immediately after the fire because there was nobody else to look after his masters interest. I do not think it is likely that he would have stayed in the village alone that night if this had been a real case of arson. Next, if Parmeshwar had himself seen Munsaf setting fire to the but, I do not understand why on the following morning Ram Lal should have been ordered by Audh Behari to go to Daltonganj to inform Gajadhar Prasad. There would have been no necessity for Audh Behari to interfere. I am satisfied that Ram Lal was sent by Audh Behari and the Chaukidar Faujdar by the constable and that at Daltonganj they had an interview with Gajadhar and Parmeshwar and that under Gajadhars orders Parmeshwar went afterwards to thana to lodge an information against Munsaf Ram.

11. It has been contended that the first information contains details which it would not have been possible for Parmeshwar to give if he had not himself seen Munsaf in the act. I am not impressed by this argument. The statement that Munsaf was running away and that Jagat Prasad was standing near the Thakurbari might easily have been invented by one who was not at the place of occurrence at all. It is next contended that most of the information is a mistake of fact and does not amount to a false information within the meaning of Section 211, I.P.C. If the appellant had said to the Police that he suspected Munsaf Ram and if he had not deliberately charged Munsaf Ram with having set fire to the hut there might have been some substance in this plea, but here it is clear that the appellants intention was not merely that the Police should follow up a clue but that the Police should put Munsaf Ram on his trial. It was clearly the appellants intention to set the criminal law in motion against Munsaf Ram and to injure Ramsunder and Jagat Prasad.

12. Next it is contended that the case does not come within the latter part of Section 211. It is urged that a false information given to the Police is not a proceeding instituted on a false charge within the meaning of the second part of the section. In my opinion a charge laid before the police is a criminal proceeding, and notwithstanding the authority of Queen-Empress v. Bisheshar. (1894) 16 All 124 I think that the decision of Pull Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Karim Buksh v. Queen-Empress (1890) 17 Cal. 574 contains a correct statement of the law.

13. Finally there remains the question of sentence. Having regard to the fact that the hut was a very flimsy and temporary structure, and that it was worth only Rs. 25-0-0 and that the total value of property destroyed was less than Rs. 50 0-0 a sentence of four years rigorous imprisonment seems to be unduly severe. There might have been a suspicion in the mind of Parmeshwar that Ram Sunders men had had a hand in causing the fire and the false charge does not bear any indication of any deep laid plot. In the circumstances I think that a sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment will meet the ends of justice. The sentence is accordingly reduced.

Bucknill, J.

14. I agree.