Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

In Re: Iswar Chunder Guho and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Jun 30, 1887
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/888182

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kolkata
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

False evidence - Affidvait ffirmed before a Deputy Magistrate--Prosecution on facts stated in an affidavit affirmed before a Deputy Magistrate--Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), Sections 193, 199--Declaration by law receivable as evidence--Sanction to prosecute, Order for, quashed. -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Iswar Chunder Guho and ors.

Legal References

Reported In
(1887)ILR14Cal653

Excerpt

false evidence - affidvait ffirmed before a deputy magistrate--prosecution on facts stated in an affidavit affirmed before a deputy magistrate--penal code (act xlv of 1860), sections 193, 199--declaration by law receivable as evidence--sanction to prosecute, order for, quashed. - order1. this rule was obtained to set aside certain pending proceedings taken against two persons for perjury. they have been ordered to be prosecuted, but no commitment has taken place, and the question is whether there is any evidence of their having committed perjury. what is alleged is that they have made an affidavit under the sanction of an oath or affirmation before the deputy magistrate who was enquiring into the case of one of them for the purpose of intimating to him that he intended to apply under section 526 of the code of criminal procedure to have the case removed for trial to some other court.2. upon that statement of the case the question arose whether he had power to administer an oath to a person for the purpose of swearing an affidavit so as to make it binding upon him under section 199 of the indian penal code.3. we have searched the code and have enquired about this matter, but we can find no power in a deputy magistrate to administer an oath to a person making a declaration in the shape of an affidavit.4. under these circumstances we do not see how this case can come under section 199 of the indian penal code, inasmuch as this was not a declaration which any public servant was bound or authorised by law to receive as evidence of the facts stated in it.5. under these circumstances we think that upon the admitted facts of this case these persons are not alleged to have made any affirmation or taken any oath within the meaning of the penal code, and therefore they are not liable to prosecution for perjury under section 199 or section 193. the proceedings pending before the deputy magistrate against iswar chunder guho and sarat chunder bhoomick will, therefore, be quashed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. This rule was obtained to set aside certain pending proceedings taken against two persons for perjury. They have been ordered to be prosecuted, but no commitment has taken place, and the question is whether there is any evidence of their having committed perjury. What is alleged is that they have made an affidavit under the sanction of an oath or affirmation before the Deputy Magistrate who was enquiring into the case of one of them for the purpose of intimating to him that he intended to apply under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to have the case removed for trial to some other Court.

2. Upon that statement of the case the question arose whether he had power to administer an oath to a person for the purpose of swearing an affidavit so as to make it binding upon him under Section 199 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. We have searched the Code and have enquired about this matter, but we can find no power in a Deputy Magistrate to administer an oath to a person making a declaration in the shape of an affidavit.

4. Under these circumstances we do not see how this case can come under Section 199 of the Indian Penal Code, inasmuch as this was not a declaration which any public servant was bound or authorised by law to receive as evidence of the facts stated in it.

5. Under these circumstances we think that upon the admitted facts of this case these persons are not alleged to have made any affirmation or taken any oath within the meaning of the Penal Code, and therefore they are not liable to prosecution for perjury under Section 199 or Section 193. The proceedings pending before the Deputy Magistrate against Iswar Chunder Guho and Sarat Chunder Bhoomick will, therefore, be quashed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial