(1.) The petitioner has been convicted under Section 199, I.P.C., and sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment, and an appeal from the conviction has been dismissed by the Sessions Judge of Patna. The charge was that the petitioner had presented a false affidavit on 23 May 1932 in the Court of the Munsif of Patna. He had a rent suit pending in that Court against a lady, his tenant, She died, and in the affidavit it was Stated that the date of death as ascertained by the petitioner was 27 February 1932.
(2.) The affidavit was accompanied by a petition for substitution of her heirs. The usual notice having been issued, Leyakat, the lady's husband, filed a counter- affidavit on 31 August 1932, that the date of death of the lady was not correctly stated; she had in fact died on 6 December 1931, and the application for substitution was out of time. The Munsif held an inquiry. He came to the conclusion that the date of the lady's death was as alleged by her husband and not as stated in the petition of the petitioner, and he directed the presentation of a complaint under Section 476, Criminal P.C., for the prosecution of the petitioner for an offence under Section 199, I.P.C., with the result above stated.
(3.) Two points are taken. One is that the Courts should not have held the presentation of the affidavit which is based on information received, to be an offence under Section 199 merely on proof that the information contained in it was not correct. In the lower Court's judgment the burden of proof, it is said, is wrongly placed on the accused to show both the correctness of the facts stated in his affidavit and his own good faith. It is said that this was an error of law and has led to a miscarriage of justice. The second point taken is that the affidavit filed did not fully comply with the requirements of Order 19, Rule 3, Civil P.C., and therefore was not such a declaration as a Court of justice, public officer or other servant so authorized by law to receive as evidence.