RANJIT SINGH versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1959] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 727 · Decided: 21-04-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SYED JAFFER IMAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2) S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
727 
as that part of the award has been upheld by the 
Appellate Tribunal, there is no question of the emplo-
yees being paid during the period of suspension with-
out pay. 
We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside 
the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal and rest-
ore the order of the Industrial Tribunal dismissing the 
two applications under s. 33-A. In the circumstances, 
we pass no order as to costs. 
Appeal allowed. ·. 
RANJIT SINGH 
v. 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB 
(JAFER IMAM and J. L. KAPUR, JJ.) 
Criminal Trial-Perjury-False statement in affidavit-Affi-
davit affi"Ymed to the best of knowledge and belief-N v obligation to 
file affidavit-Offence, if made out-Indian Penal Code, I86o (XLV 
of I86o), SS. I9I and I93· 
A habeas corpus application was made to the High Court 
al)eging that one S had been illegally arrested and kept in un-
lawful custody without any charge being made against him and 
without obtaining remand from a Magistrate. By way of a 
return the appellant, a sub-Inspector of Police, filed a false 
affidavit controverting the allegations made in the application. 
He was prosecuted and convicted under s. 193· Indian Penal 
Code. The appellant challenged his conviction on the grounds 
that: (i) as he was not bound under the law to file an affidavit, 
the case did not fall under s. 191 of the Indian Penal Code and 
he could not be convicted under s. 193 ; and (ii) the affidavit 
having been affirmed as true to the best of the knowledge and 
belief of the appellant it could not be said which part was true to 
his knowledge and which to his belief. 
Held that, the appellant was rightly convicted. It was not 
necessary for the application of s. 191 of the Indian Penal Code 
that the accused should be bound under the law to make an 
affidavit. If he chose to make one and bound himself on oath 
to state the truth he was liable under s. 193 of the Code if he 
made a false statement and it was no defence to say that he was 
not bound to enter the witness-box or make an affidavit. 
In the 
present case it was necessary for the appellant to file an affidavit 
as he was bound to place the facts and circumstances justifying 
I959 
The l\fanag,•ment 
of Ranij>ur 
Colliery 
v. 
Bhuban Singh 
.J;. Others 
Wanchoo J. 
r959 
April 2I, 
<959 
Ranjit Singh 
v. 
The State of 
Pun} ab 
728 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. 
the detention which could only he done by an affidavit. Ordi-
narily, where the detention- is under orders of the detaining 
authority in exercise of his plenary powers or of a Court an 
affidavit may not be necessary in making the return but where 
it becomes necessary for the detaining authority to justify its 
action by disclosing facts it has to file an affidavit. 
Held, further, that explanation 2 to s. 191 of the Code brings 
a false statement affirmed to the belief of the accused also within 
the mischief of s. l9I and thus makes it punish3:ble under s. 193 
of the Code. 
Emperor v. Lachmi Narain, I. L. R. 1947 All. 155, dis-
approved. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 19 of 1957. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated March 7, 1956, of the former PEPSU High 
Court in Criminal Revision No. 45 of 1956, arising out 
of the judgment and order dated February 22, 1956, of 
the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, in Criminal 
Appeal No. 175/36of1955-56. 
Pritam Singh Safeer, for the appellant. 
N. S. Bindra and T. M. Sen, for the respondent. 
1959. 
April 21. The Judgment of the Court was_ 
delivered by 
Kapur J. 
KAPUR, J.-This is an appeal by special leave 
against the judgment and order of the High Court of 
PEPSU passed in revision. The appellant was a sub-
Inspector of Police who at the relevant time was the 
Station House Officer in-charge Shehna police station 
in the erstwhile PEPSU State. He was convicted 
under s. 193, Indian Penal Code, by a First Class 
Magistrate and his appeal to the Sessions Judge, 
Patiala, was dismissed except as to sentence. He took 
a revision to the PEPSU High Court but that was also 
dismissed. 
This appeal has arisen in the following circumstanc-
es : One Surjit Singh, s/o Risaldar W aryam Singh, was 
arrested on September 25, 1953, at Barnala in l'EPSU 
State by the Police Inspector Jaswant Singh. He was 
kept in the lock-up at Barnala and on the following 
day his custody was handed over to the appellant and 
he was taken to Shehna and was kept in custody-it 
(2) s.c.R. 
SUPREME

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.