Monoranjan Chowdhury vs Queen-Empress

This ease has come before us on a reference by the Sessions Judge of Pubna to have the conviction and sentence set aside and an enhanced sentence passed for another offence under the Indian Penal Code. At the same time, a rule has been obtained by the Appellant before the Sessions Judge to show cause why the appeal should not be re-heard or such other orders passed as to this Court may seem necessary. The Petitioner was convicted of the abetment of an offence under sec. 211, I. P. C, that is to say, abetment of the making of a false complaint, &c., by another person and he was sentenced to six months'' rigorous imprisonment with fine. He appealed to the Sessions Judge and if we could gather from the judgment of the Sessions Judge in appeal that he considered that that offence was not established by the evidence, we should have no hesitation in directing that the conviction and sentence be set aside. But the judgment leaves it doubtful whether the Sessions Judge did not mean that a conviction under sec. 193 of intentionally giving false evidence was more appropriate in the case, for, he recommends that the conviction should be changed into one under that section and a more severe sentence passed or that the accused should be put upon his trial before the Sessions Court for such offence. Now, in proceedings taken on a charge of abetment of an offence punishable under sec. 211, it would be improper to convict the accused of intentionally giving false evidence. The two offences are entirely of a different character and in making a defence on a charge of the first named offence, the accused could not be regarded as pleading to a charge of intentionally giving false evidence in regard to some particular statement. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the Sessions Judge that the conviction could be properly changed into one under sec. 193, and that from that point of view we should consider whether the sentence passed is an appropriate sentence or not. The proper course is for us to direct that the appeal be reheard by the Sessions Judge on the charge on which the Appellant has been convicted and sentenced. Whether proceedings should be taken under sec. 193 or not, is not for us to consider.