1. This is a revision petition filed by Mohammad Khudabax who has been convicted of an offence under Section 198, Penal Code and sentenced to four months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100 (one hundred rupees) only Cr in default simple imprisonment for one month. This conviction and sentence have been upheld by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur.
2. The following was the charge against the applicant Mohammad Khudabax:
That you on or about the 21st day of November 1942 at Nagpur in the course of the trial of Civil Suit No. 46B of 1941 before Mr. S. N, Mishra, 2nd Sub-Judge, 2nd Class, Nagpur, stated in evidence
I did not ask Chunnilul to return the amount till the day on which I actually sent the notice; I am sure of this
which statement you either knew Cr believed to be false Cr did not believe to be true, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, etc.
3. The charge thus was under Section 193 read with Section 191, Penal Code of giving false evidence and not one under Section 198 read with Section 192, ibid of fabricating false evidence.
4. It is only Section 192, Penal Code which re-quires that the fabricated false evidence should affect a point material to the result of the proceeding in which it appears. This provision is omitted in Section 191, Penal Code which defines the offence of giving false evidence and nowhere lays down the above restrictive proviso: Reg v, Damodhar Bamchandra Kulkarni, 5 Bom. H. c. B. 68. If the statement made is designedly false the accused is liable, irrespective of the fact whether the statement had a material bearing Cr not upon the matter under enquiry before the Court. The materiality Cr immateriality can have a bearing upon the sentence to be passed; Raja Bam v. Emperor : AIR1929All936 , Durga Prasad v. Emperor : AIR1933All818 , Bihari Lai Sud v. Emperor A I.R. 1939 Lah. 529 : 41 Cri. L.J. 204 The Queen v. Shib Prasad Giri 19 W. R. Cr. 69 and Queen v. Par-butty Churn Sircar 6 w. r. cr. 84.
5. So the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant that the statement must be material to the result of the proceeding in which it was made has no force and this was eventually conceded by the learned Counsel in his reply.
6. The conviction of the applicant is based on the evidence of Chunilal malguzar (p. W. 3) which is supported by the notice (ex. p-4) and the deposition (Ex. P-8) made by the accused-applicant in the criminal case which was started against Chunilal. Exhibits P-4 and p. 8 are admissible in evidence under 8. 21, Evidence Act as admissions made by the accused; vide The Queen v. Gopal Dass and Anr. 8 Mad. 271 Emperor v. Banarsi 46 ALL, 254 : A.I.R. 1924 ALL. 381 : 25 Cri. L.J. 477 Joseph Perry In re, 46 cal. 996 : A.I.R. 1920 cal 170:21 cri. L. J. 78 and Joseph Perry v. The Official Assignee of Calcutta 47 cal. 264 : A.I.R. 1920 cal. 941: 21 Cri. L. J. 522. The only Criticism that was levelled by the learned Counsel for the applicant against the evidence of Chunilal wag that it was vague and indefinite as it did not mention the dates, days, months Cr seasons when the demands were made. Chunnilal is, however, definite that demands were made twice at Narkhed and twice at Mogra and all of them were made within one and half months preceding the notice. The notice strongly corroborates this evidence and I agree with the concurrent finding of the two lower Courts that it is satisfacturily proved that the statement mentioned in the charge is
7. In the statement mentioned in the charge he said that he was sure that he did not ask Chunilal to return the amount till the day on which he actually sent the notice and he stuck to it even after his attention was drawn to exhibit P-8 the statement made by him in the criminal Court in the prosecution of Chunnilal under Section 106, Penal Code. This shows that he knew when he made the statement mentioned in the charge that it was a false statement. He has, therefore, been rightly convicted of an offence under B. 198 read with Section 191, Penal Code.
8. The learned Counsel for the applicant contended that the sentence was very heavy specially when it was remembered that the statement was not material to the. result of the proceeding in which it was made. Even without going into the question whether the statement was material Cr not it can be easily seen that the sentence is not out of proportion to the deliberateness of the offence. Persons who are proved to have told lies while in the witness-box deserve severe punishment and so though the applicant is old and the litigation has gone on for nine years and this is his first offence the sentence inflicted is not out of proportion and the revision petition stands dismissed.