HASANKHAN KALEKHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) * * * *

(2.) With regard to the conviction of the appellant under sec. 198 read with sec. 193 of the Indian Penal Code it appears that the learned trial Judge convicted the appellant because the solvency certificate in this case was forged and it was used by the appellant. In doing so with respect to the learned Judge he did not notice the elements necessary for proving the offence under sec. 198 of the Indian Penal Code. In order to understand those elements both sec. 197 and 198 will have to be reproduced. They read:-

(3.) In the present case we are not concerned with the question of the solvency certificate falling in the second Category because no provision of law has been pointed out on behalf of the State to show that the solvency certificate would be admissible in evidence by the force of that provision. Ordinarily certificates given by a Government Officer or any other person would not be by themselves admissible in evidence and will have to be proved by the evidence of the person issuing the same. But in certain cases like those illustrated earlier such certificates become admissible in evidence by virtue of some statutory provision. Such certificates are contemplated as certificates which would fall in the second category. So far as the first category is concerned Mr. Vidhyarthi for the State was unable to point out any provision of law similar to the provisions extracted from different statutes as above which would require the Mamlatdar to issue or sign the solvency certificate. But. Mr. Vidhyarthi urged that the phrase required by law occurring in sec. 197 would only mean authorisation to issue or sign some certificate. He urged that the phrase would only mean authorisation of doing something which could not be said to be illegal. Having laid this ground for this submission he relied upon the resolution of the then Government of Bombay in the Revenue Department bearing No. MSG.RD. 2454 dated 10th May 1954 with regard to solvency certificate for production in Criminal Courts. The relevant portion of the resolution a plain copy of which was made available to the Court reads:-