1. One Ghamandi Nath made a report to the police on 21st April 1928, that on the previous night a burglary or dacoity had been committed at his house and that two men Manni Lal and Babu Lal were standing at his door armed with a spear and a sword directing the operations of the burglars or dacoits. The report was found to be false so far as Manni Lal and Babu Lal were concerned. Ghamandi Nath was thereupon tried for offences under Sections 211 and 500, I.P.C. on the complaints of Manni Lal who is a brother of Babu Lal. The Magistrate convicted Ghamandi Nath under Section 500 and sentenced him to three moths' simple imprisonment. He adopted a very weak attitude and refrained from passing any order on the charge under Section 211, I.P.C. Manni Lal thereupon applied in revision to this Court to enhance the sentence under Section 500, I.P.C. and to inflict a sentence under Section 211, I.P.C. This Court agreed that the sentence of three months' simple imprisonment was ludicrously inadequate, but as Manni Lal withdrew his application the Court refrained from issuing notice to Ghamandi Nath to show cause why the sentence passed on him should not be enhanced. Babu Lal thereupon took up the running and filed in the Court of a Magistrate a complaint against Ghamandi Nath under Section 211, I.P.C. and the Magistrate accepted this complaint.
2. The District Magistrate in revision has submitted the record to this Court for dismissing the complaint. He has taken no legal ground but has expressed the view that further proceedings against Ghamandi Nath would amount to persecution in satisfaction of a private grudge and it was not advisable that he should be further prosecuted. This is a sound reason and I would accept the reference on this ground. It appears to me, however, that in law also the complaint to the Deputy Magistrate is not justified. It was rightly pointed out by Mr. Chaube that there was a withdrawal by the complainant with the consent of the Court here of a charge under Section 211 and so the provisions of Section 240, Criminal P.C., applied and Ghamandi Nath must be considered to have been acquitted of that charge. It was argued that there was no specific consent of this Court and that the provisions applied only to the trial Court. When this Court accepted the withdrawal by the complainant Manni Lal, it may be presumed that it gave its consent to such a withdrawal. In his application for revision Manni Lal had desired a sentence under Section 211, I.P.C. also to be imposed; so his withdrawal of that application a mounted to a withdrawal of the charge for that offence. The provisions of Section 240 apply to every grade of Court, not only to the Court of trial. There is also another reason why the complaint to the Deputy Magistrate would conflict with the provisions of Section 403(1) and (2) of the Code-Clause (1) deals with acquittals of offences covered by Sections 236 and 237. As to offences covered by Section 235, Clause (2) lays down:
A person acquitted or convicted of any offence may be afterwards tried for any distinct offence for which a separate charge might have been made against him on the former trial under Section 235, Sub-section (1).
3. Reading this in conjunction with the provisions of Clause (1) it would follow that when a separate charge has been framed against a person under any of the sub-sections other than Sub-section (1), Section 235 he cannot be tried for the separate charge when he has once been convicted or acquitted of one charge. To the case of Ghamandi Nath Sub-section (2), Section 235, would apply because the acts alleged against him of making a false report constitute an offence of falling within two definitions of the Indian Penal Code, namely those of Section 211 and Section 500, and he could be charged with them and tried at one trial for each of such offences. When he was convicted of one of such offences, namely an offence under Section 500, he could not be tried over again for an offence under Section 211, I.P.C. This view is supported by a Bench ruling of the Calcutta High Court, Sharbekhan Gohain v. Emperor  10 C.W.N. 518. There a person had been tried for offences under Sections 201 and 202, I.P.C. and acquitted by the Sessions Court. When he was tried again for an offence under Section 176 based on the same facts, the High Court held that he could not be so prosecuted as the case did not fall under Sub-section (1), Section 235, Criminal P.C., but under Sub-section (2) of that section. I direct, therefore, that the proceedings against the applicant under Section 211, I.P.C., be quashed add Babu Lal's complaint dismissed.