TEJUMAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against the framing of a charge against the accused under section 193. I. P. C.

(2.) ONE Dr. Jaisingh made a police report against Laxmandass and two others on a charge under Section 332, I. P. C. and the said persons were challaned in the court of the Extra Magistrate, Tonk. The case ended in acquittal. Tejumal petitioner while appearing as a defence witness in that case made a statement on 21-7-1953 that "laxmandass is not related to me as a son of any of my uncles. " the Extra Magistrate, Tonk after dealing with the proceedings in which the statement was made filed a complaint to Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tonk on 4-111953 under Section 193 I. P. C. on the allegation that the said statement was false and the accused had intentionally given false evidence in judicial proceedings when he was legally bound on oath to state the truth. It was alleged that the said statement was false to the knowledge of the accused and he had no reason to believe it to be true. In support of the prosecution, a previous statement of the accused recorded by Mr. Hari Kishan Dayal, Civil Judge, tonk in civil suit instituted by, Mirchumal against Phagunmal and others for recovery of Rs. 2542/- (Civil Suit No. 7 of 1953) was produced in which Tejunial appeared as a witness of the defendant and during cross-examination admitted that Laxmandass was his uncle's son. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate after recording the statement of certain prosecution witnesses and examining the accused ramed the following charge against the petitioner Tejumal on 3-12-1955:

(3.) THE accused Tejumal filed a revision against the said charge on two grounds that (1) if he was tried on an allegation that one of the two statements was false, it involved the trial of a charge that the statement made before the Civil Judge was false but the court could not take cognizance of that charge without a complaint being filed by the Civil Judge in that respect and (2) he could not be charged in the alternative when the two statements did not form one series of acts. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was of opinion that the points raised had some force but did not like to interfere unless the matter was decided first by the magistrate himself. The accused has come to this Court in revision.