JUDGMENT 1. This is a rule calling upon the Magistrate of the District of Maldah to show cause why the conviction of and sentence passed upon the applicant should not be set aside on the grounds, first, that there was no sanction, as required by sec. 195, C. Cr. P.; secondly, that if sanction was accorded, it was not a sanction contemplated by the section, and, thirdly, that the requirements of sec. 193 were not satisfied. The facts of the case are as follows : The accused presented a petition to the Deputy Collector of Maldah, alleging that two persons, named Uttam Chand Sha and Ram Narain Sha, had executed a sub-lease in his favour of certain ganja and opium shops. If they had done so, Uttam Chand Sha and Ram Narain Sha would be liable to have their license cancelled; and on the receipt of the petition in question the Collector at once ordered an enquiry to be made by the Excise Deputy Collector. After the Excise Deputy Collector had submitted his report in the matter the Collector passed an order to the effect that if Uttam Chand Sha and Ram Narain Sha did not, within three days, take action in a Criminal Court against the accused, their license would be cancelled. A prosecution was accordingly instituted against the present Petitioner by Ram Narain Sha, the opposite party, in this Court, and the Petitioner was found guilty of having fabricated false evidence and convicted under sec. 193, I. P. C. 2. Now, the first two grounds on which the rule was issued, namely, that sanction was necessary, under sec. 195, C. Cr. P., before the prosecution could be instituted against applicant and that, if there was sanction, it was not a sanction contemplated by the section, seem to us to have no force for two reasons. In the first place, we find that what the accused was charged with having done was this, that he executed a zaminnama, in which he made certain false statements, implying that Uttam Chand Sha and Ram Narain Sha had executed a sub-lease in his name, which if they had done so, would render their license liable to be cancelled. In the first place, we find that what the accused was charged with having done was this, that he executed a zaminnama, in which he made certain false statements, implying that Uttam Chand Sha and Ram Narain Sha had executed a sub-lease in his name, which if they had done so, would render their license liable to be cancelled. The offence is said to have been committed on the 1st June 1904, that is, long before the application to the Excise Collector, so that the offence is alleged to have been completed on that date. That being so, it appears to us that no sanction was necessary for the prosecution of the accused for such an offence. In the next place, the accused, it is clear to us, intended this zaminnama to be used before the Collector; and certainly the Collector is not a Court within the meaning of sec. 195, cl. (b), C. Cr. P. That being so, the first two grounds on which the rule was granted have no foundation. 3. The third ground upon which the rule was obtained was that the requirements of sec. 193, I. P. C., had not been complied with. The accused in this case has been charged with having fabricated false evidence, that is, a false document, for the purpose of using the same in a proceeding, other than a judicial proceeding. Now, according to sec. 192, I. P. C. a person who makes any document containing a false statement, intending that such false statement may appear in evidence before a public servant, as such, is said to fabricate false evidence. There can be no doubt that the zaminnama was intended to be used before a public servant, as such in a proceeding other than a judicial one, because it was so used on a subsequent date. The only question is, whether it is a false document and contains false statements. 4. Mr. Dunne, the learned Counsel on behalf of the applicant, contends that it does not contain false statements, and that the Courts below were in error in coming to the conclusion that it did. Now, it is true that the document does not contain in express terms a statement that Uttam Chand and Ram Narain Sha had executed a sub-lease in his favour as the lower Courts held that it did. Now, it is true that the document does not contain in express terms a statement that Uttam Chand and Ram Narain Sha had executed a sub-lease in his favour as the lower Courts held that it did. But it appears to us to contain many false recitals implying that such a sub-lease was executed; and if these recitals are false, they are false statements and the accused in making such a document would be guilty of fabricating false evidence. It has been found, as a matter of fact, that there was no such sub-lease executed between the parties : so that it follows that all the recitals contained in the document, implying that such a lease had been executed and that the accused had pledged property in favour of Uttam Chand are altogether false. It has been found, as a matter of fact, that there was no such transaction and no such sub-letting of the property nor any agreement that the accused should work as servant or lessee under Uttam Chand Sha or to pay him Rs. 8 per month. 5. Under these circumstances we think that the requirements of secs. 192 and 193, I. P. C., have been complied with in this case. The rule is accordingly discharged,