1. The dictum of the Sessions Judge that a witness who deliberately gives false evidence, but who, when confronted with incontestable proof of its falsehood then admits it to be false, ought not to be prosecuted' for perjury, is one that cannot be approved.
2. In the present case, the accused deliberately denied that his daughter was married to the son of the person in whose favour he was called as a witness. This was not a matter in regard to which he could have made any mistake. Indeed, in his statement next day he did not suggest any mistake but admitted the offence and asked to be excused. I must, therefore, set aside the acquittal by the Sessions Judge, and find the accused guilty of an offence punishable under Section 193, Indian Penal Code.
3. As to sentence, it is urged on behalf of the accused that he is an elderly man of 50 years of age, and has already undergone rigorous imprisonment for 1 month and 7 days. The Public Prosecutor does not press for further imprisonment, being only anxious to have the correct view of the law maintained. In the circumstances, I refrain from imposing sentence of further imprisonment.
4. The sentence will be one of rigorous imprisonment for the period already suffered.