JUDGMENT Henderson, J. - The Petitioners have been convicted of offences punishable under secs. 420 and 182 of the Indian Penal Code. Prima facie, this would appear to be earlier a strange combination. It becomes even stranger when it is found that these two (sic) are supposed to be different aspects of the same act. The facts are very simple. Certain (sic) requisitioned by the Garrison Engineer, It became the duty of the Land Acquisition Officer to make an award for these huts. A claim was put in by the Petitioners and an award was made in their favour. A counter-claim was made by a lady called Nandarani. Although of course it was not the function of this revenue officer to decide whether the conveyances executed by the Petitioners in favour of Nandarani were benami, he changed his mind. He called upon the Petitioners to refund the money. They refused and he then made a complaint upon which these convictions are based. 2. We can well understand that this complaint might be a spur to urge the Petitioners to comply with the order of refund; but it passes our comprehension how it could ever be treated seriously as a complaint of offences of cheating and giving false information to a public servant. 3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge devoted practically the whole of his judgment to deciding whether Nandarani was a benamidar for the Petitioners. This, of course, is a question for the Civil Courts and not for the Criminal Court: but at any rate the learned Judge dealt with it as though he were dealing with a civil suit and not a criminal prosecution. Before the prosecution could succeed at all it would have to he demonstrated that the claim of the Petitioners was false. As they did not even dare to put Nandarani into the witness box, it is rather difficult to say how there was any evidence upon which it could be said that this claim was proved to be false. 4. But whether the claim was true or false, it is quite clear that the Petitioners did not commit either of these offences. If these huts never existed at all, the Petitioners and Nandarani might very well be convicted of a conspiracy to commit cheating. It is however admitted that the huts did exist. The Land Acquisition Officer had to make an award. If these huts never existed at all, the Petitioners and Nandarani might very well be convicted of a conspiracy to commit cheating. It is however admitted that the huts did exist. The Land Acquisition Officer had to make an award. The question whether the Petitioners were telling the truth when they said that Nandarani was their benamidar was a question for the decision of the Civil Courts. No question of cheating in connection with it could possibly arise. The absurdity of holding the contrary view would be that in every case of a disputed claim somebody would be guilty of cheating or attempting to cheat. 5. It is only necessary to examine the terms of sec. 182 to see that it has nothing to do with a case such as this. I have already pointed out that in view of the action of the Garrison Engineer it became the duty of the Land Acquisition Officer to make an award in favour of somebody. This is not a case of persons giving false information and thereby inducing the Collector to do something. It is merely a question of a disputed claim. The Petitioners have really been convicted in advance for filing a false written statement in a suit which may be instituted against them by Nandarani, in which the Court may very possibly find that the written statement is quite true. Nothing could be more absurd than to call this an offence under sec. 182, I. P. C. The Rule is accordingly made absolute. The convictions and sentence are set aside and the Petitioners will be discharged from their bail. The fines, if paid, will be refunded. Sharpe, J. I agree.