The Queen vs Hardyal

E. Jackson, J.—The Judicial Commissioner has now proved the deposition which the prisoner gave before the Sessions Court in the trial of Mohan Lal for murder. In that deposition, the prisoner stated that one Dava had cut down his aunt Patti. It is proved that before the Magistrate he had stated that Mohan Lal had committed the murder. The other evidence taken in the case also proves that Mohan Lal committed the offence. Finally, the prisoner in his defence has admitted that his deposition before the Judicial Commissioner was false, and that before the Magistrate was the true statement. The prisoner is therefore guilty of having given false evidence before the Judicial Commissioner, but I think his offence falls within section 193 and not section 194. The prisoner, when he made that false deposition, did not know that he would cause, or know it to be likely that he would cause Dava to be convicted of the offence of murder. In fact in giving that deposition in the trial of Mohan Lal, he could not possibly cause the conviction of Dava of murder. The offence, however, tending as it might have done to throw suspicion on an innocent person of the murder, which the prisoner knew was committed by Mohan Lal, was of a more than usually grave description. I would therefore sentence the prisoner to two years'' rigorous imprisonment. I have confined my attention to the deposition made before the Judicial Commissioner, because a Sessions Court has authority to commit only for perjury committed before such Sessions Court. It has no authority to commit for perjury committed before the Magistrate. It follows that the charge for perjury before the Magistrate framed by the Judicial Commissioner was irregular.

Norman, J.

I concur in reducing the sentence on the grounds stated above.