M.C. Desai, J.
1. The applicant has been convicted winder Section 182, I. P. C., for making a false report to the police that a burglary was committed in his shop. The report was investigated by the station officer, who found a small hole in a wall of the shop. He asked a 16 year old lean boy Azimullah to pass through the hole but Azimullah could not succeed. He, therefore, concluded that the hole was too small to let any human being pass through, that consequently no burglary was committed and nothing was stolen from the shop and that the report was false, and made a complaint against the applicant.
The only evidence to prove the falsity of the report is that the hole was very small, but the mere fact that Azimullah could not pass through it, does not prove that anybody other than Azimullah also could not. Azimullah has not been proved to be the leanest person in the world and the hole, though not sufficiently large to let him pass through, might be sufficiently large to let somebody thinner than him pass through. The applicant did not accuse Azimullah of committing the burglary; he, as a matter of fact, accused nobody in the report.
There is hardly anything else to justify the finding that no burglary was committed at all. The applicant is an educated man and no criminal motive has been assigned for his making a false report. The appellate court conceded that he did not intend to cause annoyance to anybody by making a false report but thought that he wanted to cause annoyance to the Sub Inspector himself. I do not understand how the Sub Inspector would be annoyed by a report of burglary made to him, but even if the applicant intended to cause annoyance by making a false report to him, it would not bring him within the clutches of Section 182, I. P. C.
The accused must intend to cause, or know it to be likely that he will cause, a public servant to use his lawful power to the annoyance of any person, that is, of any other person. A public servant cannot use his lawful power to the annoyance of himself. When the appellate court found that the applicant did not intend to cause annoyance to any person, it could not convict him unless it found that he intended to cause, or knew that he would cause, the Sub Inspector to do anything which he ought not to do if the true state of facts were known to him.
The only result of the lodging of the report was that the Sub Inspector started investigation; if he had known the true facts he would not have done so. But it cannot be said that making the investigation is an act which he ought not to have done if the true facts were known to him. There is no law or rule requiring him not to make an investigation in certain circumstances. In the absence of a positive law or rule requiring him not ,to make an investigation if he knew that a certain report was false, lodging a false report intending to cause, or knowing it likely to cause, him to make an investigation would not constitute an offence.
2. If the report is false, it must have been made with an ulterior motive. The ulterior motive which seems most likely is that the applicant wanted to suppress certain documents by pleading that they were stolen by a burglar and, therefore, made the report of burglary; but making a false report with this intention is not punishable under Section 182, I. P. C.
3. I am not satisfied that the report is false or that the applicant had the requisite intention or knowledge. His conviction and sentence are set aside. He is acquitted and his bail bonds are discharged.