- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Nandalal Ghose Accused, v. King-Emperor Opposite Party.
Factual and Procedural Background
A Rule was issued upon the District Magistrate of Noakhali asking why convictions and sentences passed under secs. 193 and 199 of the Indian Penal Code should not be set aside. The Petitioner had been accused in a complaint before the Raipur Union Bench, which issued a summons for his appearance. The Petitioner applied to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for transfer of the case from the Union Bench. A dispute arose as to whether the Petitioner had appeared before the Union Bench on 8 July and 12 July 1942. The Union Bench reported that the Petitioner had not appeared on those dates; the Petitioner asserted to the Sub-Divisional Officer that he had. The Sub-Divisional Officer directed the Petitioner to file an affidavit to that effect. The Petitioner swore an affidavit before a first class Magistrate stating he had appeared on those dates. The Sub-Divisional Officer, after enquiry, concluded the affidavit statements were false and directed prosecution under secs. 193 and 199 of the Indian Penal Code. The Petitioner was tried before a first class Magistrate at Noakhali, convicted and sentenced under secs. 193 and 193/199 IPC (detention until rising of Court and a fine of Rs. 200, with default rigorous imprisonment for six months). An appeal to the Sessions Judge of Noakhali was dismissed.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the convictions and sentences under secs. 193 and 199 of the Indian Penal Code should be set aside.
- Whether the affidavit sworn before a first class Magistrate was valid when that Magistrate "had no jurisdiction to take evidence in this particular matter" and thus "had no authority under sec. 4 of the Oaths Act to administer an oath in the matter."
- Whether, under sec. 5 of the Oaths Act, an oath could be administered to the Petitioner who was the accused in the criminal proceedings that were the subject-matter before the Sub-Divisional Officer.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the validity of the oath on which the prosecution for false statement was founded. It concluded as follows:
- The affidavit was sworn before a first class Magistrate who "had no jurisdiction to take evidence in this particular matter," and therefore lacked authority under sec. 4 of the Oaths Act to administer the oath in question.
- Separately, because the Petitioner was the accused in the criminal proceedings that formed the subject-matter of the Sub-Divisional Officer's proceedings, sec. 5 of the Oaths Act provided no authority to administer an oath to an accused in a criminal proceeding.
- Because the oath was improperly administered for these two reasons, the basis for prosecuting the Petitioner for making a false statement on oath did not exist; accordingly, the conviction could not stand.
Holding and Implications
HOLDING: The Rule was made absolute; the conviction and sentence were set aside and the accused was acquitted.
Consequences: The direct effect is that the Petitioner's convictions under secs. 193 and 199 of the Indian Penal Code were quashed, the sentence was set aside, and any fine paid will be refunded. The opinion does not discuss broader legal implications beyond the immediate relief to the Petitioner, and it does not assert the establishment of any new precedent.
Lodge, J.:— This Rule was issued upon the District Magistrate of Noakhali to show cause why convictions and sentences passed under secs. 193 and 199 of the Indian Penal Code should not be set aside.
2. The material facts are as follows: The Petitioner was accused of an offence in a complaint made before the Raipur Union Bench. The Bench issued a summons for the appearance of the Petitioner. Thereafter the Petitioner moved the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for a transfer of the case from the file of the Union Bench. A question arose before the Sub-Divisional Officer whether the Petitioner had or had not appeared before the Union Bench in answer to the summons. A report was received from the Union Bench that the Petitioner had not appeared before the Bench either on the 8th of July or on the 12th of July, 1942. The Petitioner stated before the Sub-Divisional Officer that he had appeared before the Union Bench on those days. The Sub-Divisional Officer thereupon directed the Petitioner to file an affidavit to the effect that he had appeared before the Union Bench on those dates. Accordingly an affidavit was sworn before a first class Magistrate by the Petitioner to the effect that he had appeared before the Union Bench on the 8th of July, 1942 and on the 12th of July, 1942. The Sub-Divisional Officer made an enquiry and came to the conclusion that the statements in the affidavit filed by the Petitioner were false. He accordingly directed the prosecution of the Petitioner under secs. 193 and 199 of the Indian Penal Code. The Petitioner was placed on his trial before a Magistrate, first class, Noakhali, was found guilty and was sentenced under secs. 193 and 193/199 of the Indian Penal Code to detention until the rising of the Court and to a fine of Rs. 200, in default of payment of fine he was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months only. An appeal from the conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Sessions Judge of Noakhali.
3. In our opinion, this Rule must be made absolute. In the first place, the affidavit was sworn before a first class Magistrate who had no jurisdiction to take evidence in this particular matter. The first class Magistrate had, therefore, no authority under sec. 4 of the Oaths Act to administer an oath in the matter. Further, the Petitioner was the accused in criminal proceedings which were the subject-matter of the proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Officer. Under sec. 5 of the Oaths Act there is no authority to administer an oath to an accused in a criminal proceeding. For this reason also no oath ought to have been administered to this accused. Such being the case, the Petitioner ought not to have been prosecuted for making a false statement on oath and ought not to have been convicted therefor.
4. The Rule is accordingly made absolute. The conviction and sentence are set aside and the accused is acquitted.
5. The fine, if paid, will be refunded.
Das, J.:— I agree.
P.C
Alert