Prayag Singh And Others Accused v. Emperor Opposite Party.

1. I am clearly of opinion that the conviction of petitioners 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 21st January 1918. Petitioner 1 was the identifier on whose identification summons was served on Sukar. Petitioners 2 and 3 were witnesses to the service of summons. They have all been convicted under S. 193, I.P.C This Court refuses to interfere so far as petitioner 1 is concerned. The only question which I have to consider is whether the conviction of petitioners 2 and 3 can be upheld. I have already mentioned that petitioners 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. S. 192, I.P.C, provides as follows:

“Whoever causes any circumstances to exist, or makes any false entry in any book or record, or makes any document containing 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 erronous opinion, touching any point material to the result of such proceeding, is said ‘to fabricate false evidence.’”

2. Did petitioners 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, 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.

3. 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 Sukar. 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 under 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 under S. 193, I.P.C, cannot be sustained.

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

V.S/R.K

5. Conviction set aside.