Jagdat Singh and Another vs Emperor

Rowland, J.—These are two applications in revision, the one presented by Kamala Saran Singh and the other by Jagdat Singh, his son. The latter has been convicted u/s 199, I.P.C., and the former u/s 193, and each sentenced to undergo four months. I shall take up first the case of Jagdat, because the whole proceedings arise out of an affidavit sworn by him on 14th July 1932. The affidavit contained an averment of fact which has been found to be false, and the only ground which could be taken for him in revision was that the circumstances of the case would not support a finding that he had made a statement which he knew or believed to be false or which he did not believe to be true.

In a recent Criminal Revision No. 295 of 1933 [Shahzad Khan v. Emperor AIR 1933 Pat 513 ] I have pointed out following Muhammad Ishaq Vs. Emperor, , that in prosecutions u/s 193 or 199 it is not sufficient for the prosecution to show that the statement is false and thus throw a burden of proof on the accused to establish good faith as a defence, but the prosecution must show affirmatively the knowledge that the evidence given or declaration made was false or else a belief in its being false or absence of a belief in its truth.

I propose therefore in this case to take the course of examining the facts to see whether they will support the inference that accused at the time of swearing the affidavit knew it to be false, believed it to be false or did not believe it to be true. (After examining the affidavit and the other circumstances his Lordship held that Jagdat should be given the benefit of doubt and that his conviction should be set aside. The judgment then proceeded.) I now turn to the case of Jagdat''s father, Kamala Saran Singh, Criminal Revision No. 320 of 1933.

He did not swear an affidavit, but the charge against him arises out of his deposition in the Munsif''s Court on 15th August 1932. (After examining the evidence his Lordship proceeded.) In his case I do not think that in revision I ought to interfere with the conviction. His conviction is therefore maintained, but the sentence, I think in the circumstances of this case, is severe.

I would sentence him to pay a fine of Rs. 100 (Rupees one hundred) only, in default rigorous, imprisonment for six weeks. The order of the Court below is modified accordingly.