1. Upon certain applications being presented against one Kishan Prasad, Central Nazir of Bulandshahr, an enquiry was started by the learned District Judge in the course of which the appellant Raja Ram was examined on oath on 5th and 6th April 1929. The learned District Judge was of opinion that Raja Ram was guilty of deliberate perjury with respect to certain statements and notice was issued on 20th April 1929 to Raja Ram to show cause why his prosecution should not be directed. The order dated 20th April 1929 sets out the statements which were alleged to have been intentionally false.
2. As Raja Ram appeared to be on leave the notice of the order dated 20th April could not be served on him. The finding of the learned District Judge is that Raja Ram was deliberately and designedly flouting the order of the Court and evading service. Upon the facts of the case, there can be no doubt that he was deliberately avoiding service.
3. Raja Ram is a process server. He had behind him resources aggressively large to prevent the due service of the notice issued by the learned Judge on 20th April 1929. One of the process servers called Abdul Latif stated in his report that Raja Ram had bean seen in Bulandshahr on 20th April 1929 at about 9-30 a.m.
4. The learned District Judge by his order dated 25th April 1929 directed that Raja Ram should be prosecuted for perjury with respect to the statements set out in his order dated 20th April 1929.
5. It is contended that the learned District Judge instituted an enquiry about the conduct of Lala Kishan Prasad in his administrative capacity and it was not within his competence to direct the prosecution of Raja Ram for any false statements made by him in the course of the said enquiry.
6. In order that a person should be rendered liable for perjury under Section 193, I.P.C., it is essential that the perjury should have been committed in the course of any trial or proceedings before a civil, criminal or revenue Court or in the course of a judicial proceeding or that at least the statement to which, the assignment of perjury is attached, should have been made under a legal sanction.
7. The appellant is faced with the difficulty that if the statements in question were made in the course of an administrative enquiry no appeal lies to this Court. There is the authority of this Court in Emperor v. Santi Lal  42 All. 130. A plea has been taken in appeal that the statements about which the prosecution of the appellant has been directed were not material to the enquiry in hand be fore the learned District Judge and therefore his prosecution could not be ordered under Section 193,I.P.C. If the statement was designedly false, the appellant was liable for the consequences of this statement irrespective of the fact as to whether the statement had a material bearing or not upon the matter which was under enquiry before the Court. The materiality or the immateriality of the statement could have a bearing upon the question of sentence which was to be passed in the case.
8. There are no materials before this Court for the determination of the question whether the order was passed by the Court in its administrative capacity or in pursuance of an enquiry held as a civil, criminal or revenue tribunal. Equally there are no materials before this Court for the determination of the question as to whether the statements were made under a legal sanction. In making this observation, I have in view the provisions of the Indian Oaths Act, of Section 80, Evidence Act. and of Order 18, Rule 5, Civil P.C. The appellant had the opportunity of establishing in the Court below that no proceedings ought or should have been initiated against him. He deliberately evaded justice. He has not been able to put forward before this Court any materials to show that the order passed by the Court was without jurisdiction as being outside the powers possessed by the Court under Sections 195 and 476, Criminal P.C. Mr. Nanak Chand applied for permission to refer to certain papers. I refused permission as the papers were outside the record of the case now before me.
9. The appeal is dismissed.