JUDGMENT : BANERJI, J.:— The applicant, Ganeshi, has been convicted of having fabricated false evidence and sentenced to four months' rigorous imprisonment. The circumstances out of which this prosecution arose were these:— On 13th July, 1903, an application for partition was presented in the Revenue Court by Todar and others under section 106 of Act III of 1901. Four persons, namely, Ramsaran, Sisram, Ramji Lal and Bharat Singh, who were also co-sharers in the village had not joined in making the application. On 14th October, 1903, an application was filed bearing the signature of a pleader, Baijnath, to the effect that the applicants were desirous that 9 bighas and odd should also be partitioned and formed into a separate patti. The names of the applicants were not set forth in the application, but the pleader filed it by virtue of a Vakalatnama which purported to have been executed in his favour by the four persons named above, The signature of one of these, Ramji Lal, purported to have been made on the Vakalatnama by the accused Ganeshi, his brother, The application of the 14th October, 1903, was not signed by any one except the pleader, but at the foot of it there was a verification which bore the signatures of four persons, one of whom was Ramji Lal, This signature was written by the pen of Ganeshi. It is an admitted fact that at the time of the signing of the Vaka-latnama and of the verification at the foot of the petition, dated the 14th October, 1903, Ramji Lal was dead, Ganeshi was accordingly prosecuted on the charge of having fabricated false evidence by reason of his having signed the name of a dead person on the Vakalatnama and on the petition. The court of first instance convicted him in respect of both the documents. 2. The court of first instance convicted him in respect of both the documents. 2. The lower appellate court acquitted him on the charge of having signed the Vakalatnama, but it has held that in signing the verification under the application, he fabricated false evidence, In order to sustain the charge of fabricating false evidence against the accused in this case, three things must be established, firstly, that he made a document containing a false statement secondly, that he intended that such false statement should appear in evidence in a proceeding taken before a public servant, and thirdly, that the false evidence so appearing in evidence, might cause any person who in such proceeding was to form an opinion on the evidence to entertain an erroneous opinion, touching any point material to the result of such proceeding, If Ganeshi had written the signature of Ramji Lal on the application itself, it might be said that he made a document containing a false statement But this he does not seem to have done, As I have already stated, the petition itself does not contain the names of the petitioners or bear the signature of any of them, The only person who signed it was the pleader, and it is by virtue of the Vakalatnama which the pleader filed that the petition was deemed to be one on behalf of the four persons who purported to have executed the Vakalatnama.’ The learned Sessions Judge has acquitted Ganeshi on the charge of fabricating false evidence in respect of the Vakalatnama. Consequently I find it difficult to hold that the petition of the 14th October, 1903, was made by Ganeshi. The law did not require that the petition should be verified. Therefore it cannot be said that by putting the signature of the dead’ man, Ramji Lal below the verification as that of a person who was alive, he fabricated the petition itself. As the law did not require the petition to be verified, he could not be convicted of having falsely verified it. Further, the signature below, the verification could not be used as evidence of the fact that an application had been made by Ramji Lal. It is also doubtful that the application was evidence in respect of a matter material to the result of the proceeding. It was not necessary that all co-sharers should have made the application. Further, the signature below, the verification could not be used as evidence of the fact that an application had been made by Ramji Lal. It is also doubtful that the application was evidence in respect of a matter material to the result of the proceeding. It was not necessary that all co-sharers should have made the application. If some made it, that would have been sufficient to enable the revenue authorities to take action, Under these circumstances I am unable to hold that Ganeshi committed the offence of fabricating false evidence and his conviction on that charge cannot be supported. Even if he had committed that offence, the sentence already undergone is sufficient, for the ends of justice, There was manifestly no dishonest intention, and he had nothing to gain by signing his dead brother Ramji Lal's name. I accordingly allow the application and set aside the conviction and sentence. The bail furnished by the applicant is discharged.