ISAB MANDAL Vs. QUEEN-EMPRESS
LAWS(PVC)-1900-8-11
PRIVY COUNCIL
Decided on August 13,1900

ISAB MANDAL Appellant
VERSUS
QUEEN-EMPRESS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Stevens J - (1.) This rule was issued in the following circumstances: The police began an investigation into a case of murder, but while that investigation was pending, on a representation made by the District Superintendent to the District Magistrate, the Deputy Magistrate, Babu Bhowany Prosad Neogi, was sent to make an inquiry into that case and into a counter-charge which had been made, as we understand, against the informant in that case. The Deputy Magistrate accordingly went to the spot and instituted an inquiry. In the course that of inquiry, he examined the present petitioner as a witness, and, in consequence of the statements which he made on that occasion, he confronted him with a written statement which had been taken down by the Sub-Inspector of Police under the provisions of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Deputy Magistrate after asking the petitioner whether he had made a certain statement to the Sub-Inspector, recorded a note that the witness was evidently speaking falsehood and that he should show cause why he should not be prosecuted under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. A proceeding was instituted against him, the Sub- Inspector was examined and, after stating specifically that the petitioner had made certain statements to him, he attested the statement taken down under Section 162, which statement was put upon the record and marked as Exhibit D. Another witness gave evidence as to certain statements, which, he alleged, had been made by the petitioner to the Sub-Inspector. On these materials, the petitioner was sent up to the District Magistrate for prosecution under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was made over to another Deputy Magistrate, who proceeded to try the petitioner and finally convicted him of intentionally giving false evidence in a stage of a judicial proceeding, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a year and half under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sub-Inspector, who had been examined as a witness in the former proceeding, again gave evidence. He again attested the statement taken down in writing under Section 162 and said: "This (Exhibit B shown) is a record of his statement prepared by me." In addition to that he orally gave evidence as to certain statements which had been, as he alleged, made to him by the petitioner. Another Sub-Inspector was similarly examined with reference to a further statement in writing which he had taken down under Section 162 The rest of the evidence, so far as it relates to the statements made to the police-officer by the petitioner, is concerned only with isolated statements, and not with the whole of the statement as committed to writing by the Sub- Inspector in the document marked (Exhibit B).
(2.) In the charge, the act charged against the petitioner was the he had said on solemn affirmation that he had not made before the Sub-Inspector Golam Hossein the statement recorded by him in the document marked Exhibit B by the Deputy Magistrate.
(3.) The conviction was upheld by the Sessions Judge on appeal.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.