Hari Churn Singh v. The Empress Opposite Party.

This was a rule, issued on the 7th of November 1899, against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Singbhum, dated the 12th of August 1899, under sec. 193, I.P.C, which order was, on appeal, affirmed by the Judicial Commissioner of Chota Nagpur on the 16th September 1899.

The facts of the case appear from the judgment of the High Court as also from the judgment of the lower Appellate Court which was as follows:—

The Appellant has been convicted of an offence under sec. 193, I.P.C, and has been sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment.

The facts, set forth in the judgment appealed against, are that the Police reported the Appellant as keeping an unregistered coolie depot. The Appellant was discharged by the Deputy Magistrate, the latter being apparently of opinion that some other person was the guilty party. He proceeded to examine the Appellant as a witness on oath, and the latter made certain statements which are quoted in the judgment. At the subsequent trial he made other statements, also quoted, and the Deputy Magistrate being of opinion that the statements were contradictory and irreconcilable ordered the Appellant's prosecution under sec. 193, I.P.C The Deputy Commissioner tried the case, found that the Appellant's latter statements were false and convicted him.

The 1st contention, taken in appeal, is that the Deputy Magistrate who discharged the Appellant was not justified in examining him afterwards as a witness and has no power to do so, and that consequently the Appellant was under no obligation to speak the truth.

I am unable to agree in this view, I think sec. 192(1), C.P.C, authorises a Magistrate to make an enquiry before transferring a case.

The other contention is that the two statements are not irreconcilable. In this view also I cannot agree. I agree with the Deputy Commissioner that the latter statements are intentionally false.

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed, and the Appellant will be arrested and remanded to jail to serve out his sentence.

The Petitioner moved the High Court and obtained the present rule which was in the following terms:—

On the authority of the case of Mayadeb Gossami(1) we grant a rule upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the conviction and sentence should not be set aside on the grounds, first, that the first deposition alleged to have been made by the Petitioner was not read over to him and admitted by him to be correct, and, secondly, on the ground that it was not made in a stage of judicial proceeding. The record will be finding that the second statement was false, cannot be maintained. The conviction and sentence must, therefore, be set aside and the rule made absolute.

Ride made absolute.

S.C.S