- (1.)THE applicant Ganpatram was convicted and acntenced to pay fines of Ra. 300-0. 0 and Ra. 200-0-0 Under Sections 211 and 600, Penal Code respectively by (he First Claas Magistrate, Bilaspur; and in appeal the Extra Additional Sessions Judge, Bilnapur, affirmed the convio-tiona but set aside the sentence awarded under 6. 600. The applicant has now come up in mi. sion to this Court.
(2.)ON 22nd May 1947, the applicant made a report vide Ex. P-l to the police that on the previous night there had been a house-breaking at his house in Kota and that clothes, bedding and ornaments, including a kakni, worth H9. 35-8-0 had been removed. Dating the subsequent investigation the applicant told Misbrilal (P. W. 2) Sub-Inspector, that Rambai (P. W. 3),hiserat-wbile mistress, was the thief and when her house was searched, clothes and ornaments were found there, She had also pawned a kakni two months previously with Rameshwar (P. W. 1) for EB. 3-00 The investigation revealed that there had not actually been a real house-breaking or theft and Bambai filed the complaint which initiated the present case.
(3.)THE applicant in examination denied that Rambai was his mistress, that be had given a kakni, other ornaments or clothea to her or that he had charged her with being a thief. Two witnesses were examined in his behalf, but their testimony was disbelieved for good reasons.