1. This is an appeal by one Nazir Ahmed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge of Noakhali who has complained against him in that he brought a false charge of theft against one Nawab Ali. The case of theft was instituted by Nazir Ahmad by giving information to the Police. The Police enquired into the case and sent up Nawab Ali who was committed to the Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge found the case false and complained against Nazir Ahmad under Section 476, Criminal P.C. The first point urged by the learned vakil for the appellant is that the alleged offence was not committed in a proceeding or in relation to a proceeding before the Sessions Judge. The learned vakil contends that the offence, if any, was committed by the institution of the case before the Police and further that Section 476 refers to offences which are committed after the proceedings have begun before the Court.
2. We think, however, that the words 'in relation to' are sufficiently wide to cover a case where the offence was actually committed before the proceedings began in the complaining Court. In the present case the proceeding was the trial of Nawab Ali for theft by the Sessions Court and that Court found that the charge was false and hence that the charge made to the Police was false. The false charge to the Police was obviously a matter related to the proceedings in the Sessions Court for it was the basis of the proceedings. Had there been no charge to the Police there would have been no proceedings in the Sessions Court.
3. So far as this Court is concerned the question may be considered as one of first impression. Our attention has not been drawn to any decision of this Court since Section 476 was amended. We are, however, fortified in the view that we take of the meaning of the expression 'in relation to' by a recent decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Daroga Gope v. Emperor A.I.R. 1925 Pat. 717, Mr. Justice Mullick held that if two offences are even remotely connected by the relationship of cause and effect then the first may be said to be committed in relation to the second. If we consider the institution of the false base to the Police as the cause of the proceedings before the Sessions Judge - and this we think no doubt it was - then it may beheld that the false case instituted before the Police was in relation to the proceedings in the Sessions Court.
4. That being so the present case falls within Section 476 and the Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to make the complaint. Mr. Sen Gupta would then seem to argue that the evidence which is relied on is not worthy of belief, that if we examine the evidence we shall not find it worthy of credit.
5. That is a question for the trial Court to decide in the first instance and not for us. It might obviously be very unfair to the appellant that we should express any opinion whatever on the point at this stage and we purposely refrain from So doing.
6. The Magistrate who hears the case will decide it and it is not for us to do the work of the Magistrate.
7. The appeal is dismissed.