ORDER 1. It is clear from the evidence of Prosecution Witness No. 2 that the only information, that the Village Magistrate--accused--had, was that a jewel, belonging to P.W. No. 2, was missing, whether because it had been stolen or because the daughter of P.W. No. 2 had lost it. This being so, it cannot be said that the Village Magistrate had any information of the commission of that offence of theft, which, under Section 45(c), Criminal Procedure Code, he was bound to communicate to the Magistrate or Police. We set aside the conviction against the accused and direct that the fine, if paid, be refunded.