Couits Trotter, J - (1.)In this ease the accused was charged under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code with making a false charge against one Angara Mukari, under Section 1 of the Workmen s Breach of Contract Act, XIII of 1859. In order to determine the point at issue, which is one of considerable interest, it is necessary to examine both the wording of Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code, under which the accused was convicted, and the wording of the Workmen s Breach of Contract Act. Section 211 of the Penal Code is as follows : Whoever, with intent to cause injury to any person, institutes or causes to be instituted, any criminal proceeding against that person, or falsely charges any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge against that person, shall be punished, etc." By the Workmen s Breach of Contract Act, Section 1, it is enacted as follows : When any artificer, workman or labourer shall have received from any master or employer, resident or carrying on business in any Presidency- town, or from any person acting on behalf of such master or employer, an advance of money on account of any work which he shall have contracted to perform, or to get performed by any other artificers, workmen or labourers, shall willfully and without lawful or reasonable excuse neglect or refuse to perform, or get performed, such work according to the terms of his contract, such master or employer or any such person as aforesaid may complain to a Magistrate of Police, and the Magistrate shall thereupon issue a summons or a warrant, as he shall think proper, for bringing before him such artificer, workman or labourer, and shall hear and determine the case.
(2.)And Section 2 enacts : if it shall be proved to the satisfaction of the Magistrate that such artificer, workman or labourer has received money in advance from the complainant on account of any work, and has wilfully and without lawful or reasonable excuse neglected or refused to perform or get performed the same according to the terms of his contract, the Magistrate shall, at the option of the complainant, either order such artificer, workman or labourer to repay the money advanced, or such part thereof as may seem to the Magistrate just and proper, or order him to perform, or get performed, such work according to the terms of his contract; and, if such artificer, workman or labourer shall fail to comply with the said order, the Magistrate may sentence him to be imprisoned with hard labour for a term not exceeding three months.
(3.)It was proved in the lower Court, and it is not contested here, that the proceedings launched under section 1 of Workmen s Breach of Contract Act were in fact falsely brought and that the charge was a baseless one, and indeed it was withdrawn almost immediately the case came on. The employer has been convicted under Section 211 for falsely bringing those proceedings. The only point he takes before us here is that the proceedings under the Workmen s Breach of Contract Act are not criminal proceedings within the meaning of Section 211. Indian Penal Code.