RAM LAL BABU RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a conviction Under Section 193, Indian Penal Code, and a sentence of 4 months' rigorous imprisonment coupled with a fine of Rs. 200/- thereunder by the learned Sessions Judge ot Amritsar against the appellant Ram Lai.

(2.) THE basis for the prosecution is a statement which was made by the appellant in the Court of the inordinate Judge, Miss Santosh Mehta, on the 21st or June, 1961 that he had paid a sum of Rs. 130/- to Ajaio Singh P. W. on the 4th of Sawan Samvat 2u18 and mat Ajaib Singh has given his thumb-impression in the presence of the accused on entry, Exhibit P 4/d, which was scribed by his munim also in his presence. The learnned Sessions Judge found that prosecution could not succeed on charges made under Sees. 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly acquitted mm. It has, however, been found by him that Ram Lai is guilty, of an offence Under Section 193 of the Indian Penai Code. Before a person can be convicted for giving raise evidence Under Section 193, Indian Penal Code, it has to be proved that he was 'legally bound by an. oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject makes any statement which is false x x x x xx x. though it is not denied that the appellant made mis statement attributed to him, it has been submitted in this Court as also before the learned Sessions Judge that the record does not show that the appellant was administered an oath before he gave his evidence and that this statement was not read over to the accused after it had been completed.

(3.) NEITHER of these submissions In my opinion can be sustained. I have looked into the original records 01 the case and find that Exhibit P. E. /l is the certified copy of the statement made by Ram Lai detore miss Santos Mehta on the 2lst of June 1961. It snows that the statement was made on solemn affirmation, me statement was continued on the 30th of June 1961 and it must be presumed that the oath which was aamimstereo to the witness on the 21st of June 1961 continued to bind his statement and he continued to be on oath till the evidence was concluded.