SEJMAL PUNAMCHAND Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (October 8, 1926.)--This is an application by two accused persons, who were charged with having given false evidence in the course of their statements in a suit filed on the Original Side of this High Court. The charges against accused No. 1 were two, first, that he made a false statement "Not true that I then deducted Rs. 750 for first ten months interest"; and secondly, that he made the following false statement, "No letter was brought to me along with that cheque. I got no letter from defendant in which he alleged we had deducted Rs. 750." The charge against accused No. 2 was that he made the following statement which he knew or believed to be false, "Not true that Rs. 750 deducted for interest." There was separate charges against each of the accused.

(2.) In the suit in which the two accused gave evidence, one of the questions raised at the instance of the defendant in that case was whether the sum of Rs. 750 was paid back by him as interest at the time of the loan. The trial Court having made a complaint under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, in respect of these statements, these proceedings were started against the accused in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, and the charges were framed against each of the accused, as above indicated. The learned Magistrate, after considering the evidence, came to the conclusion that these statements were proved to be false to the knowledge of the accused persons, and, accordingly, convicted them under Section 193, Indian Penal Code, and passed sentences against accused No. 1 of three months and one month's rigorous imprisonment and against accused No. 2 of three months rigorous imprisonment respectively.

(3.) The present application has been filed by the accused for a revision of these convictions and sentences. The first point of law raised on behalf of the applicants is that the joint trial of the two accused persons in respect of each one giving false evidence with reference to the particular statement is not legal. In support of this contention reliance is placed upon the decisions of this Court in Reg V/s. Bhavani-shankar Haribhai 5 B.H.C.R. Cr. C. 55 and King- Emperor V/s. Krishnarao 4 Bom. L.R. 53. Secondly, it is urged that the two charges against accused No. 1 in respect of two statements made in the course of the same deposition are not legal; and that the offence committed by the accused in respect of these statements is really one offence. And reliance is placed upon Rakhal Chandra Laha V/s. Emperor 2 Ind. Cas. 697 : 36 C. 808 : 9 C.L.J. 690 : 13 C.W.N. 942 : 10 Cr. L.J. 150. For the purpose of this judgment I need not state the further point raised as to the merits of the case.