JANKILAL Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUBHEDAR , A.J.C. 1. The main facts of the ease out of which this application for revision arises are these. In Civil Suit No. 26 of 1921 on the file of the Second Subordinate Judge, Akola, a decree for Rs. 456-8-0 for costs was passed against eight persons including the applicant. In execution of this decree the applicant put in a verified application on 10th January 1925 (Ex. P-6) stating that there was an adjustment of the decree so far as he was concerned by the decree-helder Radhakisan having agreed to accept Rs. 75 as the applicant's share of liability. The decree-holder having denied this adjustment, an enquiry under Order 21, Rule 2, Civil P.C., was made by the Subordinate Judge who held the adjustment not proved. In this enquiry the applicant was examined as a witness on 27th August 1925 and had made the following statement in Ex. P-2 which has been the basis of the prosecution: About 12 months ago Seth Radhakisan came to my shop to sattla the dispute. The next day I went to decree-holder?s shop. It was on the 9th August. Radhakisan was than engaged in puja. Radhakisan cams in the shop and told ma that he would accept the amount of my share any day. Adjustment between me and Radhakisan was made in ray shop on 86h or 9th August 1924.

(2.) AFTER unsuccessfully moving the Subordinate Judge to start criminal proceedings against the applicant for an offence Under Section 193, I.P.C. the decree-holder filed an appeal to the District Judge who lodged a complaint against the applicant as desired by the decree-holder in respect of the false statements contained in Ex. P-6 and Ex. P-2. The case was tried by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Akola, who convicted the accused on both the counts and sentenced him to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250 on each count. Against this order the applicant appealed to the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, who quashed the conviction with regard to Ex. P-6, but maintained the conviction and sentence in regard to Ex. P-2. The applicant, has, therefore, come up to this Court in revision.

(3.) I will first dispose of the second contention. In his defence at the trial the applicant never suggested that he had been mistaken in giving the 8th or 9th August 1924, as the dates on which the alleged adjustment had taken place. As a matter of fact time was allowed to the applicant by the civil Court to make a definite statement, and on 10th January 1925, he filed a verified application (Ex. P-6) alleging that the adjustment had taken place on the aforesaid dates and later on he confirmed this statement by his sworn testimony which is the subject matter of the charge. Even in the proceedings relating to his being prosecuted for perjury the applicant did not put forward the plea of the mistaken belief, that is now advanced on his behalf. It cannot be denied that the date of the alleged adjustment was a very material factor for the determination of the question which the civil Court was called upon to decide in the execution proceedings. In Mohamad Ismail Khan v. Emperor [1919] 22 O.C. 236, it was held that to justify a conviction for perjury it is not necessary to prove that the statement is impossible, it is sufficient to prove it is incredible. In the present case, however, the evidence for the prosecution establishes beyond question that the statement of the accused which is the subject of the charge could not possibly be true. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, I have not the slightest doubt in confirming the well considered and concurrent finding of the two lower Courts hat the statement made by the applicant and quoted above was absolutely false and that when making the same he did not believe it to be true.