Emperor vs Rajappa Ramappa Kalal

Heaton, J.—This is a curious case. A person was accused of an offence on the following facts; for the purpose of securing a licence or something of that sort from the Abkari Officials he made a false declaration to a Mamlatdar in the hope that he would obtain from the Mamlatdar what is called a certificate of solvency, a certificate which would enable him more easily to obtain the licence or whatever it was that he wanted from the Abkari authorities. He was charged with an offence u/s 199 of the Indian Penal Code in consequence of making this false declaration and he pleaded guilty to the charge. We can only take this plea of guilty as a plea that the facts alleged against him were correct, because we think, as does the Sessions Judge who referred this case to us, that the facts alleged and admitted do not amount to an offence u/s 199 of the Indian Penal Code. That section is very strict in its terms and deals with a false declaration only when the declaration is one which a Court of Justice or a public servant or other person is bound or authorised by law to receive as evidence. It has not been pointed out to us that any Court of Justice or any public servant or any person is either bound by law or authorised by law to receive such a declaration, as we have in this case, in evidence and, therefore, in law no offence u/s 199 of the Indian Penal Code has been committed. The Sessions Judge held that as there was a plea of guilty, he could not deal with the cage in appeal and, therefore, he referred it to us. What I have said shows that the offence of which the accused was convicted has not been committed and, therefore, the conviction must be set aside and the fine, if paid, refunded. I only wish to add that I have spoken exclusively with reference to Section 199 of the Indian Penal Code. Bail bonds in this case may be cancelled.

Shah, J.

I agree.