EMPEROR Vs. MOTILAL HIRALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused was convicted by the First Class Resident Magistrate of Nadiad of intentionally giving false evidence under Section 133 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment. An appeal to the Additional Sessions Judge was dismissed. The accused has now asked us to exercise our Kevisional Jurisdiction in his favour.

(2.) The facts may be stated very shortly.

(3.) The accused was suspected as having been concerned with what is well known as the Nadiad derailment case. The offence was committed on the 12 April 1919. On the 11 May, the accused was brought before Mr. Ker, the District Magistrate, who tendered him a pardon on the usual terms under Section 337 of the Criminal Procedure Code; he was then examined by the District Magistrate, and stated how he along with others uprooted the raila just before the passing of the troop train. The accused was examined as a witness in the case before the Special Tribunal on the 25 and 26 July 1920, when he swore that he had nothing whatever to do with the offence and that his statement before the District Magistrate had been induced by dishonest motives. Thereafter the requisite sanction was obtained from the High Court and the Special Tribunal and after trial he was convicted as aforesaid on the ground that he had made two contradictory statements on oath one of which he must have known to be false. Two main objections have been taken to the decisions of the lower Courts.