KUMAR CHOWDHURY Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application on behalf of one Kumar Chowdhury who was, prosecuted by the Munsif of Cuttack for offences under Secs.196 and 198, I.P.C., and having been found guilty of these offences has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months under each of these sections and to pay a fine of Rs. 50. The sentences of imprisonment passed under the two sections have been made concurrent. It appears that one Dr. Triguna Charan Ray, a private medical practitioner, instituted a Small Cause Court suit against the petitioner and his brother for a sum of Rs 59, and one of the questions which arose in that suit was whether the petitioner's father Behari Chowdhury was alive on 3 June 1928 or had died before that date. In order to support his allegation that his father had died on 12 May 1928 the petitioner produced in the Court of the Munsif a certificate signed by the Chairman of Cuttack Municipality and also applied to the Munsif for issuing summons upon one Lokenath Naik, his family astrologer, to produce an almanac or diary in which, according to him, the date of his father's death had been noted. The Munsif, before he made up his mind to prosecute the petitioner, held an inquiry and was satisfied that the petitioner's father was alive on 3 June 1928 or in other words he had not died on 12 May 1928 as alleged by the petitioner. The conclusion arrived at by the Munsif has been upheld by both the Courts below and the only question which was argued before us on behalf of the petitioner was whether the conviction of the petitioner under Secs.196 and 198, I.P.C., could be sustained in law. It may be stated here that the charge under Section 198, I.P.C., was framed against the petitioner with reference to the certificate granted by the Chairman, Cuttack Municipality, to him which runs as follows: Certified that Bebari Chowdhury of Biswanath Lane died of malarial fever on 12 May 1928 and that his death was entered in the Death Register of Ward No. 2 on the same date; his age is shown as above 50 years.

(2.) This certificate was, as it purports to be, based upon an entry in the death register maintained by the Municipality and in the course of the trial it was found that the date noted in the register as the date of Behari Chowdhuri's death tallied with the date in the certificate. As, however, the Courts below were satisfied that the petitioner's father Behari Chowdhury was alive on 12 May 1928, they held that by producing this certificate which contained an incorrect statement with regard to his death, the petitioner had committed an offence under Section 198. Section 198, as will appear presently, must be read along with Section 197. Section 197 runs as follows Whoever issues or signs any certificate required by law to be given or signed, or relating to any fact of which such certificate is by law admissible in evidence, knowing or believing that such certificate is false in any material point, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence.

(3.) Section 198 provides that: Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use any such certificate, as a true certificate, knowing the same to be false in any material point, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence.