RAKHAL CHANDRA LAHA Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Rakhal Chandra Laha, has been convicted, under Section 193 of the Indian Indian Penal Code, of perjury in a judicial proceeding, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000, and, in default of payment of the fine, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for an additional term of one year and nine months.

(2.) The case for the prosecution may be briefly stated. Rakhal Chandra was employed as a spy by the police at Midnapore, from May to September 1908, in order to gather information about a conspiracy believed to exist for the murder of officials by the use of explosives and otherwise. It is stated that he generally brought reports from day to day which were taken down by the head constable, Asadullah. The entries were subsequently read over to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Moulvi Mazharul Huq, and then signed by the informer. It is alleged that on some occasions the reports were written out by the informer himself. The effect of the informations so recorded was to implicate a large number of persons in the alleged conspiracy, and on the basis thereof, proceedings were commenced under the Explosive Substances Act against twenty-seven persons. On the 4 November 1908 Rakhal was examined in the Court of the Joint Magistrate before whom these proceedings were pending. He did not depose in support of the previous statements. On the other hand, he gave a detailed account of the circumstances under which he had been compelled to act as an informer, and described minutely the inducements which, he alleged, had been held out to him by the District Magistrate, Mr. Weston. In his deposition he further stated that exhibit 56, which purports to be the record of the informations given by him to the police, was not written out from day to day, but had been prepared in one sitting and had been signed by him practically under compulsion from the police. On the 23 November 1908 the Deputy Superintendent of Police applied to the Joint Magistrate for sanction under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code to prosecute Rakhal for an offence under Section 193 of the Indian Indian Penal Code. This application specified the statements in the deposition which were alleged to be false. On the day following, sanction was granted by the Joint Magistrate. Proceedings were then commenced in the Court of the Additional Magistrate, and, on the 9 March 1909, Rakhal was committed to take his trial in the Court of Sessions. On the 29 March the Sessions Judge, in agreement with the two assessors, found Rakhal guilty of an offence under Section 193, and sentenced him as already described.

(3.) The propriety of this conviction has been challenged substantially on five grounds, namely, first, that the sanction, on the basis of which the proceedings were instituted, was bad, inasmuch as the alleged false statements were not specified in the sanction; secondly, that the charges were illegal, inasmuch as, although there were nominally three heads, there were in substance at least seven charges; thirdly, that the deposition containing the alleged false statements was not legally proved; fourthly, that the statements in question had not been proved to be false; and fifthly, that a proper opportunity was not afforded to the counsel for the accused either to cross-examine the witnesses or to place his case fully before the Court. It has further been argued by the learned vakil for the appellant that, if the conviction is sustained, the sentence is too severe and should be reduced.