DURGA PRASAD Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision from a conviction under Section 193, Penal Code. The accused and his father were plaintiffs in a civil suit pending in the Court of the Munsif, and on 24 March 1930, which was the date fixed for its hearing, an application was filed on their behalf for an adjournment of the case on the ground that the accused's father Gobri Ram was ill and not present in Court, and this evidence was indispensable. The learned Munsif was informed by the defendants that Gobri Ram was actually present outside the Court-room, and that if an orderly were sent out he could be brought in. On this information the learned Munsif sent his Orderly to call in Gobri Ram. The orderly met Gobri Ram and was bringing him to the Court-room. When they reached the Court-verandah the accused, Durga Prasad, went out and made Gobri Ram run away. The reader of the Court and the defendant's vakil, as well as the orderly, saw this and informed the Court that Gobri Ram had been made to run away by the present accused. Durga Prasad was examined by the Court on oath on the fact whether Gobri Ram, his father, was ill and had not come to Court. There is some controversy as to the exact stage at which Durga Prasad's statement was recorded, but there is no doubt that he made the statement of oath that his father Gobri Ram was seriously ill that day and had not come to Court, and that he was not with the orderly of the Court. The Court dismissed the application for adjournment. It was after this that the Court was informed by the defendant's vakil that he had information that Gobri Ram was actually hiding in the petrol shop near the Court. The learned Munsif went to the place himself and found Gobri Ram in the shop. These facts are undisputed. It cannot possibly be suggested that Durga Prasad did not make a deliberately false statement before the Munsif, and in spite of the fact that Gobri Ram had been seen by people, he persisted in his false statement that he had not come to Court at all. The learned Munsif on this started proceedings under Section 476 and Section 195, Criminal P.C., and filed a complaint against the accused under several sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 193.

(2.) An appeal from the order was filed, on the ground that the statement had not been recorded in the course of a judicial proceeding, and therefore Section 476 was not applicable. The appeal was dismissed, and no further attempt was made to bring the matter up in revision to the High Court, and get the order set aside. The accused was prosecuted and has been convicted, and his conviction under Section 193 has been affirmed by the Sessions Judge. The learned advocate for the applicant urges that the statement was not taken down in or in relation to any judicial proceeding, and therefore neither Section 476 nor Section 195 applies. He further contends that the statement was not material to the inquiry, because it was made after the application for adjourn-ment had been dismissed. The order sheet does not show exactly at what stage this statement was recorded. It was certainly recorded before the Munsif went to the petrol shop, but it is not at all clear that it was recorded after the application for adjournment had been dismissed. The learned Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that Durga Prasad was examined in connexion with the adjournment of the case which was sought by the plaintiffs on the ground that Gobri Ram had not come to Court, being unwell, and that his evidence was essential. The accused did not lead any evidence to show that the statement was recorded after the application for adjournment had been dismissed.

(3.) Section 476, Criminal P.C., would apply when the offence is committed not only in a proceeding in a Court of law, but also in relation to a proceeding in such Court. The same remarks apply to Section 195(b). The learned Munsif had to consider whether an adjournment should be allowed. If he took down the statement before dismissing the application for adjournment, there can be no question that it was taken down in the course of the judicial proceeding relating to such an adjournment. Even if he took down the statement after dismissing the application summarily on information received, it was open to him to reconsider his order if he was satisfied that Gobri Ram had in reality not come to Court. The suit was fixed for hearing on that date, and there was nothing to prevent him from postponing it if, on the evidence of Durga Prasad, he was satisfied that Gobri Ram was really ill. I am therefore unable to hold that the statement of Durga Prasad was not recorded "in relation to" the proceeding relating to the adjournment of a pending suit. He was a party to the suit which had to be dismissed for want of prosecution or default if no one appeared to prosecute it. It was as a matter of, fact dismissed for default. Durga Prasad's statement on the question whether one of the plaintiffs was ill and lying at home was-material to the question under consideration before the Munsif.