Each question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Such principles may or may not be true in the real sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this section. In other words, in answering the following questions, you must not rely on any principles except the principles that are given herein below for every question. Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your interest towards study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability even if the 'most reasonable conclusion' arrived at may be unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the object of this section to test your knowledge of law.

PRINCIPLE: Whoever, being legally bound to furnish information on any subject to any public servant, as such, furnishes, as true, information on the subject which he knows or has reason to believe to be false, has committed a punishable offence of furnishing false information.

FACTS: Sawant, a landholder, knowing of the commission of a murder within the limits of his estate, willfully misinforms the Magistrate of the district that the death has occurred by accident in consequence of the bite of a snake.

The correct answer is: Sawant is guilty of the offence of furnishing false information to the Magistrate.

Let us carefully break down the principle and apply it to the facts step by step.

Step 1: Understanding the Legal Principle
The principle states that a person commits a punishable offence of furnishing false information if all three of the following conditions are satisfied simultaneously:

1. The person is legally bound to furnish information on a subject to a public servant.
2. The person furnishes such information as being true.
3. The information furnished is something the person knows or has reason to believe to be false.

Step 2: Identifying the Key Elements from the Facts
Let us map each condition of the principle onto the facts involving Sawant:

Condition 1 — Is Sawant legally bound to furnish information to a public servant?
Sawant is a landholder. The Magistrate of the district is a public servant. The fact that Sawant did furnish information to the Magistrate (even if false) indicates that he was indeed under a legal obligation to report the incident — particularly since a murder occurred within the limits of his own estate. The principle applies to anyone "legally bound to furnish information," and as a landholder whose estate is the site of the incident, Sawant clearly falls under this legal obligation. ✔

Condition 2 — Did Sawant furnish the information as true?
Yes. Sawant did not stay silent. He actively informed the Magistrate, stating that the death occurred by accident due to a snakebite. By presenting this account to the Magistrate, he furnished it as a true account of events. ✔

Condition 3 — Did Sawant know or have reason to believe the information was false?
Absolutely. The facts explicitly state that Sawant had knowledge of the commission of a murder. Therefore, when he told the Magistrate it was an accidental death by snakebite, he was fully aware that this account was false. This is not a case of mistaken belief — it was a willful misrepresentation. ✔

Step 3: Applying the Principle to Reach a Conclusion
All three conditions of the principle are clearly and completely satisfied:

- Sawant was legally bound to report to the Magistrate (a public servant). ✔
- He furnished information as true (reported snakebite instead of murder). ✔
- He knew the information to be false (he had direct knowledge of the murder). ✔

Step 4: Eliminating the Other Options
Option A ("Sawant is not guilty") — Incorrect, because all conditions of the offence are met.
Option C ("Sawant is not legally bound") — Incorrect, as a landholder is legally bound to report incidents on his estate to the Magistrate.
Option D ("Sawant has discretion to furnish true information") — Incorrect and misleading; having legal jurisdiction over an estate does not give a person discretion to lie to a Magistrate.

Conclusion:
Since Sawant knowingly and willfully misled the Magistrate — a public servant — about a murder by falsely claiming the death was accidental (due to a snakebite), while being legally bound to furnish accurate information, he has committed the offence described in the principle. Sawant is guilty of the offence of furnishing false information to the Magistrate.