Prayag Singh and Others vs Emperor

Das, J.—I am clearly of opinion that the conviction of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 cannot be upheld. The facts are shortly these: There was a rent suit by one Hakim Mohammad Reza and others against Dahu, Sukar and others. It appears that Sukar had died long before this rent suit was instituted. Summons, however, on the defendants was served on the 21st January 1918. The petitioner No. 1 was the identifier on whose identification summons was served on Sukar. Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 were witnesses to the service of summons. They have all been convicted u/s 193, Indian Penal Code. This Court refused to interfere so far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned. The only question which I have to consider is whether the conviction of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 can be upheld.

I have already mentioned that petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 were merely witnesses to the service of summons. That does not imply that they were aware on whom service was to be effected. Section 192, Indian Penal Code, provides as follows:

Whoever causes any circumstance to exist, or makes any false entry in any book or record, or makes any document containing a false statement,'' intending that such circumstance, false entry or false statement may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding, or in a proceeding taken by law before a public servant as such, or before an arbitrator, and that such circumstance, false entry or false statement, so appearing in evidence, may cause any person who in such proceeding is to form an opinion upon the evidence, to entertain an erroneous opinion touching any point material to the result of such pro-needing, is said to fabricate false evidence.

Did the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 cause any circumstance to exist or make any false entry in any book or record, or make any document containing a false statement, intending that such circumstance, false entry or false statement might appear in evidence in a proceeding taken by law before a public servant as such? I am clearly of opinion that the answer cannot be in the affirmative. If indeed it had been proved that they were aware on whom service was to be effected, the matter would have stood on a different footing altogether. But that is not the finding of the Courts below and so far as I have read the evidence and I have certainly examined some of the evidence in the case--oral and documentary--I do not find that it has been proved that they were at all aware of the fact that service was to be effected on Sakar. It may well be that the identifier told them that service was to be effected on some other person. Before these petitioners can be convicted of an offence u/s 193, it must, in my opinion, appear that they were aware that service was to be effected on Sukar. In my opinion their conviction u/s 193, Indian Penal Code, cannot be sustained.

I, therefore, set aside the conviction and the sentence passed on the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3.