AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 175 wordsRalph Benson, O.C.J.
u/s 63 of the Registration Act, 1908, the Sub-Registrar had authority to administer an oath to the petitioner and to record a note of the substance of the statement made by the petitioner before him.
Section 82(a) enacts that "whoever intentionally makes any false statement...before any officer acting in execution of this Act in any proceeding or inquiry under this Act", shall be punishable and so forth. It seems to me clear that the petitioner has committed an offence punishable u/s 82(a) of the Registration Act and u/s 113, Indian Penal Code.
The case referred to Queen-Empress v. Bubaji Raghunath 1 Bom. L.R. 686 seems to me to be clearly distinguishable from the present case. As I understand the facts in that case, the Registrar, before he made the inquiry u/s 74 of the Act, had before him admissions of execution by the executants and there was, therefore, no ground for his making an inquiry u/s 74.
I see no ground for revision and I dismiss the petition.