BATAKRUSHNA PAL Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application arises out of the concurrent orders of the Courts below, convicting the petitioner under Section 193, Indian Penal Code, and sentencing him to fifteen days rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 30. THIS is a very petty case which should not have been launched at all, as would appear from what I am going to say presently. The petitioner was a complainant in a previous case in which certain pleaders clerks were accused persons. He was cross-examined by the accused in that case, and, in the course of the cross examination, he is recorded to have said that, though he had been convicted, he had been acquitted on appeal. THIS statement is said to have been made on 23 July 1943. But the certificate that it was read over and explained to the witness has not been signed either by the Court itself or by the Bench clerk. Again, on 8l July, 1943, he made similar statement, though the examination of the prosecution witnesses had been finished,. and after the examination of the accused persons under Section 342, Criminal P. C, recorded. The second statement was elicited on further cross examination on 3l July, 1943, but this statement is not signed by the witness, nor is the certificate that it was read over and explained to the witness signed either by the Court or by the Bench clerk. THIS was a statement made not with a view to adding anything to the gravity of the offence, with which the accused persons in the previous case had been charged, but with a. view apparertly to appropriate some amount of credibility for the complainant. It must have been a very petty case in which he is said to have been fined ten rupees only. THIS statement, which was the subject-matter of the charge against the petitioner, was not a material statement in the sense that it did not, in any way, hamper the course of justice, because the accused persons in that case were, as a matter of fact, acquitted. That being so, in my opinion, the learned Magistrate should not have filed a complaint in this case at all. It is not one of those cases in which it can be said that the interest of justice would be advanced by prosecuting a person who has given a fraudulently false evidence which has interfered with the course of justice. Even assuming that this statement was made by the accused, it was one of those routine statements which are made by almost every witness, who comes to the witness box and wants to appropriate to himself certain amount of credibility, but it is not such a statement as is calculated to receive any credence. In view of all these considerations, the rule is made absolute, and the conviction and sentence set aside. The fine, if paid, will be refunded.