JUDGMENT : CHAMIER, J. The applicant, a Vakil practising at Etawah, was recently elected to fill a vacant seat on the Municipal Board of Etawah. The election seems to have been very keenly contested. The unsuccessful candidate presented a petition praying that the election might be set aside, and at or about the same time the applicant presented a petition to the District Magistrate who was in charge of the papers connected with the election, praying for permission to inspect the file saying that he intended to take criminal proceedings against the employees of the Municipal Board who, while distributing the voting papers, had given some of them to persons who had no right to receive them, intending to cause injury to the applicant. The District Magistrate having taken no notice of the petition, a second petition on the same terms was presented a few days later. Thereupon the District Magistrate apparently treating the petition for leave to inspect the papers as a complaint of a criminal offence or possibly acting under section 190(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ordered a Deputy Magistrate to hold an enquiry, presumably under section 202 of the Code. In the course of his deposition in that enquiry the applicant gave the names of two Municipal employees who, he said, have given voting papers to persons not entitled to them. After taking the statements of several other persons the Deputy-Magistrate recorded his opinion that the accusation made by the applicant was false, and under section 476 of the Code ordered him to be prosecuted for an offence under section 211 of the Penal Code, 1860. After taking the statements of several other persons the Deputy-Magistrate recorded his opinion that the accusation made by the applicant was false, and under section 476 of the Code ordered him to be prosecuted for an offence under section 211 of the Penal Code, 1860. As the Deputy Magistrate cannot have thought that the applicant had instituted or caused to be instituted criminal proceedings against the Municipal employees within the meaning of the first 21 words of section 211, Penal Code, 1860, by presenting the petitions mentioned at the beginning of this order, I can only suppose that the Magistrate was of opinion that the applicant's petitions coupled with his deposition at the enquiry amounted to a charge within the meaning of the words which immediately follow those words, and that this was his view appears, I think, from the passage in his order in which he says, “I hold, therefore, that his statement before me to the following effect, ‘I verify the application which I have presented to the District Magistrate……….’ read with his application renders him table for prosecution under section 211, Penal Code, 1860, for falsely charging Siraj Ahmad and Zakir Husain of offences.” The applicant had no option but to answer the questions put to him by the Magistrate in the enquiry, and his deposition cannot be held to constitute a charge within the maging of section 211, Penal Code, 1860, Queen-Empress v. Karizoivda,[1894] I.L.R., 19 Bom., 51, The only question is whether the applicant can be said to have brought a charge against the Municipal employees when he presented his petitions for the inspection of the papers relating to the election. It has been held by the Calcutta, Madras and Bombay High Courts that the words “falsely charges” in section 211, Penal Code, 1860, must be construed along with the words which speak of the institution of proceedings in the earlier part of the section, and further that the test is whether the person who made the statement which is alleged to constitute the charge did so with the intention and object of setting the criminal law in motion against the person against whom the statement is directed, Karim Bux v. Queen Empress,[1890] I.L.R., 17 Cal., 574, Jagobundhoo Karmakar v. Emperor,[1902] I.L.R., 30 Cal., 415, Queen-Empress v. Karigowda, [1894] I.L.R., 19 Bom, 51, and Rayan Kutti v. Emperor, [1903] I.L.R., 26 Mad., 640. Applying this test I must hold that the petitions presented by the applicant did not amount to charge. Those petitions gave no names. That fact is not conclusive but is an element for consideration. 2. They distinctly show that the applicant wished only to obtain materials for a charge to be launched by him subsequently. When the applicant was examined by the Deputy Magistrate on the day on which the second petition was presented, he distinctly said that he desired to make no charge against any one at that stage and at his second examination he protested against the questions that were being put to him, saying that the object seemed to be to present him from taking action on his own account. There can be no doubt that the applicant did not intend to set the criminal law in motion when he asked for leave to inspect the file. It is not for me to say whether the petition of the applicant on the subsequent depositions could be made the basis of other proceedings. I am concerned only with the question whether they amount to the institution of criminal proceedings or the making of a charge. On the authorities I must hold that they do not. I therefore set aside the order for the prosecution of the applicant for an offence under section 211, Penal Code, 1860.