ISHAR CHAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a rule directed against an order of conviction and sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code

(2.) IN order to appreciate the different points in this case it is necessary to give in greater detail the facts of the case. On the 30th of October, 1939, Mangat Ral and his son Ishwar Chand accused sold by registered deed a house to Manohar Lal for a sum of Rs. 3,500/ -. Rs. 600/- out of this were paid on the 28th of October as earnest money under a receipt Exh. P. E. and Rs. 2900/-were paid before the Registrar on the 30th of October 1939. The payment of money is shown in the endorsement Exh. P. A/1 and is to the following effect: mangat Ral and Ishwar Chand * * * the vendors have heard and understood the contents of the document and have admitted the execution of the same. Manohar Lai son of Kanshi Ram, caste mahajan, after counting the currency notes has paid Rs. 2,900/- in currency notes to the vendors. * * * on the 12th of August, 1945, Arjan Das, 3 son or Mangat Raj and a brother of the accused, brought a suit to set aside the sale on the ground 'inter alia' that it was without consideration and without necessity. One of the issues in this suit was whether the sale was for consideration. The suit was: dismissed by the Subordinate Judge and was on: appeal decreed by the Senior subordinate Judge, but in the High Court at Lahore this judgment was reversed and the suit was finally dismissed. The Subordinate Judge, Mr. Kirpa Ram, ordered the prosecution of Ishwar chand for perjury. He was tried by Mr, Chabbar, sub-Divisional Magistrate and was convicted and on appeal the conviction was upheld by the Sessions Judge of Karnal.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has taken me through the record and has submitted that no case of perjury has been proved against the accused. In the first place he has contended and in my opinion rightly that the evidence of the Sub Registrar which was given as D. W. 1 in the previous civil suit is not admissible under Section 33 of tlw-Indian Evidence Act. He has then contended that no conviction for an offence of perjury should be upheld unless there is proof of facts which, if accepted as true, shew not merely that it is incredible, but that it is impossible that the statements of the party accused made on oath can be true. If the inference from the facts proved falls short of this, it seems * * * that there is nothing on which a conviction can stand; because assuming all that is proved to be true, it is still possible that no crime was committed. and he has relied on this passage at p. 481 of Ratan-lal's Law of Crimes.