1. In this case three persons, a father, a son and the son's wife were convicted under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code of having given false information to the District Magistrate in that they complained to him that the son's wife had been raped by a certain Sub-Inspector. They made between them two complaints, one on the 8th of September and the other on the 6th of November 1923; while the offence was alleged to have been committed on as long before as July the 25th 1923. The complaints were dismissed by the District Magistrate under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The three accused were prosecuted to conviction under Section 182, Indian Penal Code. The father, the present applicant before me, Ganga Sahai, is sentenced to four months' rigorous imprisonment and the son and his wife to lines of Rs. 25 each. Ganga Sahai went up in appeal to the Sessions Judge and has now come up here in revision. On his behalf three points are taken,. (1) that he had no guilty knowledge that the complaints were false. The learned Judge has given reasons for holding that he had guilty knowledge and his conclusion being clearly a finding of fact, this Court would not, except under very exceptional circumstances, enter into it. Those exceptional circumstances do not exist here. (2) The second objection is that the accused was not examined at the end of the trial as he should have been in accordance with the provisions of Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This was certainly an irregularity but in the absence of any decision of this Court that such an irregularity necessarily amounts to an illegality vitiating the whole trial, I am certainly not going to so hold. It was an irregularity and in some cases such an irregularity might very gravely prejudice the accused. Nothing has been shown to me here to cause me to believe nor do I believe that the irregularity in this case was the cause of any prejudice whatever. There is not even a suggestion that the Pleader for the accused did not argue the case, and defence witnesses were called showing that the accused was under no sort of misapprehension. I hold that there is no force in this objection. (3) The third ground is that the act of the accused in making the complaint which he did to the District Magistrate and in abetting the complaint made by his son and his son's wife was doing an act which if it could be prosecuted at all should have been prosecuted as an offence under Section 211, Indian Penal Code. He was, in fact, prosecuted under Section 182, Indian Penal Code. It is suggested that this is an illegality. If it is, I can only suggest that it is an illegality by which the accused has very considerably benefited. If I were to accept this objection and set aside the conviction I should have to order his re-trial under Section 211, Indian Penal Code, and he would, if convicted, get a more serious sentence. The objection has not been pressed. The prosecution which was sanctioned was a prosecution for giving false information and the accused was tried for giving false information. Under those circumstances the last thing he can possibly suggest is that he was prejudiced by not being tried under Section 211, Indian Penal Code, and the rule against minimising offences is only intended to cover cases where a Court secures a jurisdiction thereby which it would otherwise not have and thereby prejudices the accused. There is no force in this revision. It is dismissed.