EMPEROR Vs. PADAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal on behalf of the Local Government from the acquittal of Padam Singh, son of Mohan Singh, who had been found guilty by the trial Court under Section 193, I.P.C., and sentenced to nine months rigorous imprisonment, but who had been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that the facts did not come, at any rate did not clearly come, within Secs.191 and 193, I.P.C. Before us two questions have been fully argued, one of law and the other of the merits, and it is incumbent on us to deal with both. The plaintiff in a civil suit was Sher Mohammad Khan. The defendant was the present opposite party, Padam Singh. The suit was brought on the basis of a promissory note said to have been executed by Padam Singh on 15 January 1926, supported by a receipt stated to have been taken from Padam Singh on the same date.

(2.) The suit was brought on 11 August 1928 and was decreed ex parte on 25th September 1928. An application for restoration made on 15 October 1928 was allowed on 1 December 1928, and on the same date the defendant, Padam Singh, was directed to file a written statement. He filed the written statement and in it denied execution of the promissory note, denied owing any sum at all and at the end of the written statement he verified these denials stating that the paragraphs in which the denials were made were true to his personal knowledge. No question has been raised before us that the verification was not in the ordinary form called for by Order 6, Rule 15.

(3.) Having filed this written statement on 1 December 1928, Padam Singh three weeks later, on 20 December 1928, applied that the thumb-impressions on the promissory note and the receipt alleged to be his might be sent for examination.