JOGENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has been convicted under Section 193 of the Penal Code. The trial Court sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, but that has been reduced by the lower appellate court to one month This conviction has been recorded against the petitioner for having intentionally given false evidence in a proceeding under Section 145. Code of Criminal Procedure, in the Court of a First Class Magistrate at Patna, Sri K. G. Hazari (P. W. 5). The first party to the proceeding was Jagdeo Singh (P. W. 1) and the second party was Ganauri Singh (P. W. 2). The petitioner had sworn an affidavit in that proceeding in support of the case of Jagdeo Singh (P. W. 1). He was also examined as a witness before the Magistrate (P. W. 5). His deposition is recorded in the said proceeding in Ext. 1, and it appears that in course of his cross-examination, the petitioner made the following statement.

(2.) Upon a consideration of the evidence on record, the trying Magistrate came to the conclusion that the petitioner had intentionally given false evidence in a Judicial Proceeding, and as such, was guilty under Section 193 of the Penal Code. The lower appellate Court took the view that the evidence (Ext. 1) of the petitioner to the effect that there was another man in his village bearing the same name and parentage as his was not intentionally false, inasmuch as he had given the name of the father of the other Jogendra Singh as Sheo Prasad. while the father of the petitioner was Ram Prasad Singh. But the lower appellate Court has held that there is no escape from the conclusion that the petitioner had deliberately made a false statement in his deposition (Ext. 1) to the effect that he had never deposed for Jagdeo Singh (P. W. 1) in any other case and that he had not been examined as a witness on his behalf in the proceeding under Section 133. Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the conviction of the petitioner on two grounds. The first contention of the learned counsel is that it has not been proved that the petitioner had made the offending statements contained in Ext. 1 on oath. In this connection it was pointed out that the Bench clerk of the Magistrate (P. W. 5) was not examined to say that oath had been administered to the petitioner before his deposition (Ext. 1) was recorded. In my opinion, there is no merit in this contention. The deposition (Ext. 1) itself shows that the statements contained therein were made by the petitioner on solemn affirmation. No. suggestion to the contrary was made on behalf of the petitioner to the Magistrate (P. W. 5) or to any of the other prosecution witnesses who had been examined with a view to prove that, it was the petitioner who had deposed on behalf of Jagdeo Singh (P. W. 1) in the proceeding under Section 145. Besides, there is a presumption in law that Court proceedings have been regularly conducted and, therefore, it must be presumed that oath had been duly administered to the petitioner when he had appeared in the witness box for giving his evidence before the Magistrate (P. W. 5). This contention of the learned counsel must, therefore, be overruled.