JUDGMENT 1. In this case a rule was granted calling upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the conviction and sentence passed on the Petitioner should not he set aside or such other order made as to this Court might seem fir, on the ground that the findings in the judgment did not disclose any offence under sec. 211 of the Indian Penal Code. The Applicant, Ram Logan Lal, was convicted under that section and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment by Mr. Whitty, the Joint Magistrate of Sasseram. 2. From the facts of the case it appears that the Petitioner, Ram Logan, occupies a portion of the house belonging to Ram Lal and that Ram Lal wants him to leave. In order to secure his object he has lately started weighing his linseed in the dalan or room through which Ram Logan has to pass to his quarters with the intention of putting him to inconvenience. In consequence a quarrel arose between the two men over the weighing of some linseed which Ram Lal had arranged to sell to Bandhan Bania. In the course of the quarrel Ram Logan abused Bandhan and Bandhan used some expression which made Ram Logan very angry. Topsi Singh was sitting near. He is a member of the canal treasure guard while Ram Logan is a canal amin. Topsi Singh appears to have taken Ram Logan's part in the quarrel and to have struck Bandhan. Bandhan made off and then, according to the case for the prosecution, Ram Logan Lal directed Topsi to go to the thana and inform the Sub-Inspector that Bandhan had stolen a bag of money of Topsi's and that he suspected Ram Lal of assisting in the theft. Topsi accordingly went to the thana, and laid an information to the effect that he had been sitting with Ram Logan, that he had a bag of change by his side and that he missed the bag and saw Bandhan going away with it and that he ran and recovered the bag and that he suspected that Ram Lal in whose presence this took place, had assisted Bandhan in this attempt to steal the bag. The story was disbelieved, and for making this false charge both the Petitioners have been convicted under sec. 211, I. P. C. 3. The story was disbelieved, and for making this false charge both the Petitioners have been convicted under sec. 211, I. P. C. 3. It is argued in support of the rule that the offence of making a false charge before the Police falls within the first portion of sec. 211 and this contention with which we agree is supported by Queen-Empress v. Karim Buksh I. L. R. 14 Cal. 633 (1887) which follows the cases decided at Allahabad on this point. 4. It is also contended that the only person who is liable to be convicted is Topsi himself and that there was no finding which would justify the conviction of Ram Logan. 5. It is argued on behalf of Ram Logan that he did nothing more than give Topsi a piece of advice as to his conduct, and that if Topsi laid an information at the police-station that was false, it is Topsi and Topsi only who is responsible, in our opinion this contention is unsound. It overlooks the fact that the occurrence which gave rise to the charge of theft took place in the presence of Ram Logan and that Ram Logan is the person who had quarrelled with the two persons against whom the charge was made. The argument would have had considerable weight if there had been any reason to suppose that Topsi had stated to Ram Logau the facts which were not within Ram Logan's knowledge and had asked his advice how to act. But it has been shown that Ram Logan was present at the time when Topsi alleges that Bandhan made off with his money, and if the story that Baudhan picked up the bag of money and made off with it and was overtaken and the money taken back were true, Ram Logan must have been a spectator and similarly if it was false it must have been false to the knowledge of Ram Logan. In our opinion Ram Logan and Topsi both knew that the story was false. In our opinion Ram Logan and Topsi both knew that the story was false. Topsi, it is true, was the actual person who laid the information but it is found as a fact that, though Topsi laid the information, Ram Logan was the person interested in getting Ram Lal into trouble in consequence of the quarrel between them, that he was acting in concert with Topsi and in fact sent him to the police-station for the purpose of laying this false information and was primarily responsible for the information being given. 6. It may be contended and contended, we think, with force that Ram Logan ought to have been convicted of abetment of an offence under sec. 211. But inasmuch as the sentence is sustainable under sec. 211/103 and is appropriate to the facts disclosed, we do not think it necessary to alter the conviction in the absence of any sort of ground for supposing that the petitioner has been in any way prejudiced by the conviction being had under sec. 211 instead of 211/103. The rule is discharged.