1. The petitioner before us was a Polite spy. He gave information to the Police that a room in a brothel was being; used for the purpose of
gambling. A search warrant was issued and the room was searched. There was no gambling going on at the time and the evidence is, that there
were no instruments of gaming, no sards, and no dice found on the premises. The Polite Beems to have tome to the conclusion that the tharge was
false and the petitioner was prosecuted for giving false information u/s 182 of the Indian Penal Code. It is not disputed that, under that section, the
burden lies on the prosecution to prove that the informer knew or believed the information to be false. See the cases of Moulvi Abdool Lutetf, In
re 9 W.R. 31 Cr. and Rayan Hutti v. Emperor 26 M. 640 : 1 Weir 122 At the trial, a number of witnesses were called on behalf of the
prosecution. They included a prostitute, named Hem Nalini, who was the occupier of the room in question, her paramour, Joy Deb Marwari, and
several friends of the latter witnesses Nos. 3, 10, 11 and 12, All these persons denied that there was any gambling going on in Hem Nalini''s room.
Other prostitutes living in the same house stated that they had not heard of any gambling going on in that room. The petitioner sailed four witnesses
in support of his defense, also prostitutes. Three of them deny any knowledge of any gambling going on in Hem Nalini''s room, while one, who
used to live in the house but does not do so now, stated that there used to be gambling in a woman''s room whose name she could not give. We
are asked to set aside the conviction on the ground that the evidence is not sufficient to justify it. It was, of course, to the interest of Hem Nalini
herself and those who were found in the room by the Police to deny that the room was used for the purpose of gambling. Their evidence was,
therefore, of an interested character. It also seems somewhat surprising that, as many as five men should have been in the room when the Police
visited it. They were Joy Deb Marwari, paramour of Hem Nalini, and four of his friends. There is no suggestion that the petitioner had any grudge
against Hem Nalini or any other person implisated. What is suggested is, that he gave information in the hope of obtaining a reward. Re wards,
however, are not given, and we under stand, except in cases where the information leads to a successful prosecution. On the whole, in the present
Base, we are not satisfied that the evidence is of such a character as to justify a conviction.
3. The Rule must, accordingly, be made absolute, that conviction and sentences are set aside. The petitioner''s bail-band will be tinseled and the
fine, if paid, will be refunded.