1. The accused is clearly proved to have deliberately fabricated and used a false endorsement on a pro-note, for his defence in the suit upon the note, and was rightly convicted under Sections 193, 196 and 471, Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to a fine of Rs. 300. He did not appeal. When the statute lays down that for a certain offence, as for that under Section 471, Indian Penal Code or under Section 193, the punishment shall be imprisonment, it means that the offender shall go to jail and imprisonment till the rising of the Court is a clear evasion of that intention.
2. Possibly in rare cases when the offence is obviously technical, a Court may be justified in taking the extreme step of evading the statute which it is appointed to administer; but on the learned Judge's;own showing, this was not such a case. That the accused is a fairly respectable man and not a hardened litigant are not circumstances of extenuation. Nor can he be described as the tool of the Vakil's clerk he is supposed to have employed; if the metaphor is to be used at all the Vakil's clerk was his tool. It was a clear case of deliberate fraud. Over and above the fine inflicted accused is sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment.