Kanhaiya Lal, J.
1. The order passed by the Court below is irregular and cannot be sustained. In a suit for the recovery of money due on a mortgage made by Maharaj Prasad, the mortgagor, Maharaj Prasad, was examined and in the course of his deposition he made certain state-meats in regard to which the Court, below has directed his prosecution. The main question for consideration in that case was, whether the mortgage in question was made for legal necessity. Various questions were put to him about certain other transactions about which he made replies which he had subsequently to modify of a certain account, Exhibit 3, being shown to him. The Court below was of opinion that in saying what he did Maharaj Prasad had deliberately made false statements. But as pointed out in Lachhmi Narain v. Emperor 19 Ind. Cas. 712 : 16 O.C. : 81 : 14 Cr.L.J. 280, a witness is entitled to locus penitentiae and an opportunity to correct himself and if, when he gets that opportunity, he recalls to his mind any fact about which he had made a statement which was not quite accurate, a prosecution for perjury will hardly be desirable. No statement made by a witness in a deposition can be regarded as a completed statement until the deposition is finished and corrected, if necessary, for, till then, it is open to the witness to justify any statement or to correct, it himself as this man seems to have done, when he was confronted with a certain account. The statements relied on were, moreover, statements hardly material to the issue before the Court. The order for prosecution does not specify those statements, but refers to another rubkar wherein a reference is made to them. Considering all the circumstances, no useful purpose can be served by allowing the prosecution to proceed. The order of the Court below is, therefore, set aside and the proceedings, if any, started in pursuance thereof will be quashed.