D. K. SETH, J. The petitioner was subjected to a District Court Martial on the basis of charges framed under Section 56 (a) of the Army Act. There were two charges levelled against the petitioner as it appears from the charge-sheet contained in Annexure 5 to the writ petition/the first charge was that he had made a false accusation on 3-2-1985 through an un dated letter submitted to Major Virendra Singh, Offg. Sqn. Commandar C Sqn. and that on 6-2-1985 he addressed another un dated letter to the Commandar 4 (I) Army Brigadier. On the basis of the District Court Martial the petitioner was punished on account of the charges as were levelled in the said charge-sheet by an order dated 16-7-1986 contained in Annexure 8 pur suant to the finding contained in An nexure 7. The appeal preferred by him also stood rejected by an order dated 6-5-1987 contained in Annexure 10. These two or ders have been challenged in this writ peti tion. 2. Mr. Rajesh Pathik, learned Coun sel for the petitioner contends that since the charges which were levelled were part of the allegation made by him against the officer who was found to have been guilty of other charges which were levelled along with those charges, the same cannot be segregated for the purpose of ascer taining as to whether there was no reason to believe that those charges were false. He refers to various materials on record and contends that there are sufficient materials to come to a finding that those charges were also could have been proved but on account of some technical difficul ties those charges were not proved but at the same time it cannot be said that there are no materials and that those charges were altogether false. Therefore, in he facts and circumstances of the case, mis chief under Section 56 (a) of the Army Act cannot be attracted. He secondly contends that the petitioner was proceeded with before the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations could have been asserted. Ac cording to him, unless the genuineness of the allegations are proved, the proceeding could not have been proceeded against the petitioner. 3. Mr. S. N. Srivastava, learned Coun sel for the respondents on the other hand, contends that the charges which were proved have not been included in the charge-sheet. Ac cording to him, unless the genuineness of the allegations are proved, the proceeding could not have been proceeded against the petitioner. 3. Mr. S. N. Srivastava, learned Coun sel for the respondents on the other hand, contends that the charges which were proved have not been included in the charge-sheet. It were other allegation in addition to those very charges which on the basis of it shows that they were false and having not been proved, there were every reason to believe that the petitioner has made this complaint though he him self believed that those were false, there fore, mischief under Section 56 (a) of the Army Act is very much attracted. He fur ther contends that since the charges having not been proved on the basis of material, it cannot be said that those charges could be correct. On these grounds, he prays that this writ petition should be dis missed. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length. 5. In order to appreciate the respec tive argument it would be useful to refer to Section 56 (a) of the Army Act as quoted below:- "section 56. False accusation-Any per son subject to this Act when commits any of the following officers that is to say- (a) makes a false accusation against any person subject ?n this Act, knowing or having reason to believe uich accusation to be false; or (b ). . . . . . " 6. A plain reading of the said section indicate that in order to attract the mis chief of Section 56 (a) the following condi tions are to be fulfilled viz: (i) the accusa tion should be false ; and (ii) the person making it should either know that the ac cusation to be false or have reason to believe that such accusation to be false. Unless both of these conditions are ful filled Section 56 (a) cannot be applied. Making of accusation knowing or having reason to believe that those are true will not make the person making the accusa tion liable under the said section. 7. Such proposition is required to be tested on the basis of the facts and cir cumstances of each case. If there are doubt as to whether the accusation is false or true then the benefit of doubt would negative the application of the mischief of Section 56 (a ). 7. Such proposition is required to be tested on the basis of the facts and cir cumstances of each case. If there are doubt as to whether the accusation is false or true then the benefit of doubt would negative the application of the mischief of Section 56 (a ). Whether the person knew or had reason to believe the accusation to be false depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The provision being penal in nature leading to conviction it requires a reasonable proof that the accusation was false or that the person making it had knew or that on the basis of the facts as a reasonable man he could have no reason to believe that it were not true. If there are some doubt or there are material on which there were likelihood that one may have reason to believe it to be true, then the mischief is avoided. 8. Now let us examine the situation having regard to the fact and circumstan ces of the present case. 9. It appears that several allegations were made by the petitioner against his superior officer one Major N. C. Raizada who was also subjected to a District Court Martial in which he had admitted three of the charges and two of the charges were proved against him and that it was also a finding in the District Court Martial that the said officer has affirmed a false af fidavit and in the findings it was fanner recorded that two of the allegation against him were also correct though no substan tial findings were recorded in respect thereof. 10. In various paragraphs of the writ petition, it has been pleaded by the petitioner that there are over- whelming materials on which decision on either way could have been taken. The materials were as such that one may take a decision in favour or against. This is a question of belief and disbelief. The very presence of some material indicate that there are semblance of truth and the person who had made the allegations have reason to believe that those allegations made by him were not false. The materials were as such that one may take a decision in favour or against. This is a question of belief and disbelief. The very presence of some material indicate that there are semblance of truth and the person who had made the allegations have reason to believe that those allegations made by him were not false. It may be a case that those allegations may not be substantiated on account of some materials which were not within the knowledge of the person making the allegation but that does not attract the mischief under Section 56 (a) of the Army Act as soon it appears that there may be reason to believe that the allega tions are true. Unless, it is proved with a reasonable definitions that there are reason to believe that the allegations are false and the person who had made such allegations was of such belief, the mischief under Section 56 (a) of the Army Act can not be attracted. 11. In the present case there being sufficient material and those materials having been discarded in exercise of power of belief or disbelief by the District Court Martial, in view of the presence of some material, it cannot be said that there was altogether absence of material to lead to a belief that there were some allegations against the superior officer. The other materials that arises are that one Arun Kumar and one Amrik Singh were found to be guilty of some of the other charges which were leveled by the petitioner. Arun Kumar was the orderly of Major Raizada. It appears that Major Raizada had sought to protect the said Shri Arun Kumar when he was so charged. This might lead to a belief that Major Raizada had also some kind of interest in the al legation which might lead to a belief that he is also involved in the matter. Similarly the said Shri Amrik Singh who was also working with Major Raizada was also found to be guilty of some of the allega tions who was also similarly sought to be protected by Major Raizada. This suffi ciently indicates the semblence of truth in the allegations made. 12. Then again these allegations were brought to the notice of Major Raizada immediately after he came back from his leave. This suffi ciently indicates the semblence of truth in the allegations made. 12. Then again these allegations were brought to the notice of Major Raizada immediately after he came back from his leave. Though Arun Kumar and Amrik Singh appear to have been involved in the charges yet he did not take any step for a long time. Only when the complaint was made by the petitioner, then only steps were taken. Further it appears from the material that some Tarpaulin was stolen from the Food Corporation of India and Food Corporation of India had also lodged a complaint but ultimately that al legation was not proved. Thus it shows that there were materials which may lead to believe that there are semblence of truth in the allegation. 13. Then again in this case number of allegations were made and out of which some were substantiated, in such cir cumstances, care and caution is to be taken while proceeding under Section 56 (a) in its letter and spirit. 14. Section 56 (a) of the Army Act has been incorporated in order to desist a per son from making false and baseless allega tions against another subject to the Act. But if such allegations are made on grounds which could be believed to be true through it might subsequently be proved false on fact which is not within his knowledge or could not have been sub stantiated on account of lack of evidence in such cases Rule 56 (a) cannot be at tracted straightaway without a definite finding that the allegations were made with the motive to malign the officer knowing fully well that the allegations were altogether false. If there are some materials on which a reasonable man could come to a decision on either way or it is a question of belief and disbelief in that event it cannot be definitely determined that the person making the allegations had made out the allegations only with the motive to malign the superior officer knowing fully well that the allegations were false. 15. 15. In the present case there is no definite finding that the allegations on which Section 56 (a) has been sought to be applied in the case of the petitioner were to malign the superior officer or that the allegations were altogether baseless and false and were so within the knowledge of the petitioner himself and that he had reason to believe that these allegations were false. In the absence of any such find ing the order of the District Court martial as well as that of the Appellant Authority cannot be sustained. 16. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and the order dated 16-7-1986 contained in Annexure 8 passed against the petitioner and the order dated 10-5-1988 contained in Annexure 10 passed by the appellate authority are hereby quashed. Let a writ of certiorari do issue accordingly. Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner and treat him as in continuous service with all service benefits including increments and promotion as maybe available to him under the relevant rules as if he was in service within a period of three months from the date of com munication of this order before the con cerned respondents and shall provisional ly determine the pay payable to the petitioner upon such reinstatement within a period of one month from the date of reinstatement and go on paying his cur rent salary until the matter is determined finally which should be decided within a period of six months from the date of reinstatement. The question of payment of arrears and calculation thereof may also be taken by the concerned authorities in accordance with law having regard to the rules and regulations including the ques tion as to whether the petitioner had been engaged in any other employment in the meantime and be completed within a period of one year from the date of his reinstatement. Let a writ of mandamus do issue accordingly. 17. The writ petition is thus allowed. However, there will be no order as to cost. W. P. allowed. .