Order.- The petitioner in this case has been convicted under section 47 of the Madras District Police Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.25. The allegations on which the petitioner was charged are contained in Exhibit P-1, the complaint sent by the petitioner to the District Superintendent of Police on 2nd February, 1948. He alleged therein that the Police Station-house Officer at Ponganoor arrested one Subbireddi, a resident of Mugavadi on 29th January 1948, in consequence of information given by some individual that the said Subbireddi had been rearing hemp plants in his own betel garden. He subsequently prepared a mahazar for the seizure of the hemp plants, but afterwards the mahazar was torn off after receiving gratification from the said Subbireddi and attempts were being made by the said Subbireddi to turn the case against the petitioner. The mahazar is said to have been signed by five persons. They are (1) Karnam Padmanabha Sastri, (2) Village Munsiff Subbireddi, (3) Ramakkagari Yenkatareddi (4) Muniki Gadeppa, and (5) Thalari Venkatappa. In Exhibit P-1, the petitioner asked the District Superintendent of Police to send a special police officer to enquire into the matter. The petition was enquired into, and the police coming to the conclusion that the allegations against the police station-house officer were false and maliciously made by the petitioner, filed a charge-sheet against the petition herein. It is in evidence that on 29th January, 1948, the police station-house officer did go to the betel garden of Subbireddi and seized some hemp plants, and the prosecution has filed the mahazar said to have been prepared on the occasion. It is Exhibit P-2 in the case. It mentions that on the western side of the garden hemp plants were reared in a bunch along with the plantain tree and jasmine tree in the second pod. In the fourth pod two hemp plants were reared along with the plantain trees, and on the north-eastern side there was one hemp tree along with avisi tree in the first pod, and there was another hemp tree along with jasmine trees in the second pod. In all there-were seven plants. It further states that these plants appeared to have been planted 2 or 3 days prior to the visit. According to the mahazar they appeared to be 1 or 1½ months old. In all there-were seven plants. It further states that these plants appeared to have been planted 2 or 3 days prior to the visit. According to the mahazar they appeared to be 1 or 1½ months old. It is the prosecution case that this is the mahazar that was prepared on the occasion and that it was not torn off as alleged by the petitioner herein; nor was there any different mahazar prepared. To refute the allegations of the petitioner in Exhibit P-1, the prosecution examined four witnesses, of whom P.W.1 is the station-house officer who went to the garden and seized the hemps. It was against him that the petitioner complained that he received gratification and tore off the mahazar and was colluding with his enemies to foist a false case on him. P.W.2 is the Sub-Inspector, a formal witness, who speaks to the investigation on Exhibit P-1. P.W.3 is the village munsiff. He has attested Exhibit P-2 the present mahazar and he speaks in support of the prosecution case that no other mahazar was prepared and that this was the only one that was prepared on this occasion. The allegation in Exhibit P-1 was that the police went along with this witness and the karnam to his house arid there tore off the previous mahazar and prepared another one, the allegation therefore was that the village munsiff was also a party to the destruction of the previous mahazar. There is evidence that the village munsiff, P.W.3 belongs to the faction opposite to that of the petitioner. The only other witness is Subbireddi, in whose garden the hemp plants are said to have been grown by him. He is also an interested witness. The evidence therefore against the petitioner consists only in the evidence of the three witnesses who are interested in saying that they have not destroyed the previous mahazar. The attestors to the alleged first mahazar were, as already stated, five in number of whom only the village munsiff who was a party to the present mahazar was examined. The other four attestors have not been examined to show that no such mahazar was prepared before. In a case where a person is charged with having made false allegations against a police officer, it is necessary that the falsity must be proved to its hilt by examining all the witnesses mentioned by him. The other four attestors have not been examined to show that no such mahazar was prepared before. In a case where a person is charged with having made false allegations against a police officer, it is necessary that the falsity must be proved to its hilt by examining all the witnesses mentioned by him. It has been pointed out by Reilly, J., in In re Sankaram Servai1that “where a person is charged under section 211 of making false report it is not for him to make out that his report was true until it has been clearly traversed by evidence produced by the prosecution showing that it was false.” In this case the whole evidence has not been let in to show that the allegations made by the petitioner are false. The case therefore has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. To conviction and sentence are set aside, and the petitioner is acquitted. The fine, if paid, will be refunded. K.S. ----- Conviction and sentence set aside.