Ramsarup Singh vs Emperor

James, J.—On 29th March, 1928, Saukhi Jha petitioned the Sessions Judge of Darbhanga praying that a sentence passed on him after summary trial by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Samastipur might be referred to the High Court for revision, stating as one of the grounds that he had not been examined at the close of the prosecution case in accordance with the provisions of Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code. The Sessions Judge u/s 539-A., Criminal Procedure Code, directed that an affidavit should be filed in support of this allegation, in default of which the application would be dismissed. In due course an affidavit was filed by Ramsarup Rai, the petitioner now before this Court. The affidavit was in the following form:

I Ramsarup Rai make oath and declare that I am fully acquainted with the facts of this case (Emperor v. Saukhi Jha) and was looking after it at its trial.

That the accused Saukhi Jha was questioned by the Sub-Divisional Officer of Samastipur at the beginning of the trial and not after the examination and cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses in the above case.

Ramsarup Rai had made a solemn affirmation before Syed Mumtaz Hussain, Deputy Magistrate, that the contents of this affidavit were true. The Sessions Judge ultimately found that the allegation made in the affidavit was false; and he formally complained against Ramsarup Rai that he had committed an offence u/s 199, Indian Penal Code. Ramsarup Rai was in due course put on his trial. The trial Court found that the allegation made in the affidavit was false and sentenced Ramsarup Rai to four months'' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of fifty rupees u/s 199, Indian Penal Code. Ramsarup Rai's appeal was heard by the Sessions Judge of Muzaffarpur who maintained the finding of the Deputy Magistrate and confirmed the sentence of imprisonment, while he set aside the sentence of fine.

It is argued on behalf of the applicant that the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of In the matter of the petition of Iswar Chunder Guho 14 C. 653 would apply to this case, but that decision was before the passing of Section 539-A, Criminal Procedure Code. Section 539-A provides that an affidavit respecting allegations against a public servant to be used before any Court other than a High Court may be sworn or affirmed before any Magistrate.

The third Clause of this section provides that affidavits shall state separately such facts as the deponent is able to prove from his own knowledge and such facts as he has reasonable grounds to believe to be true, and, in the latter case, the deponent shall clearly state the grounds of such belief. It is argued that as in this affidavit the deponent has not stated separately any facts which he merely believed to be true, the affidavit was not properly receivable in evidence and, so the petitioner ought not to have been convicted for swearing a false affidavit.

The deponent in the affidavit before us swore of his own knowledge that the accused had been examined before the close of the prosecution case and not after it, It is possible that he may have made his statement on information received from somebody else, but if that was so he ought to have specified the grounds of his belief and he ought not to have made the statement as of his own personal knowledge. He made the false statement as of a fact within his own personal knowledge, and he must take the consequences of having done so.

Lastly, it is argued that the contents of the affidavit were not explained to the petitioner by the Deputy Magistrate before whom he swore it, and he should not be held responsible for the contents of it; but it appears from the evidence of the Deputy Magistrate that the petitioner brought the affidavit to the Deputy Magistrate and stated on solemn affirmation that its contents were true. There is no merit in this application which must be rejected The applicant must surrender to his bail and serve out the unexpired portion of hit sentence.

Jwala Prasad, J.

I agree.