JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal by one Asimuddi, who has been tried by the Sessions Judge of Back egging with the assistance of Assessors and has been convicted of an offence under sec. 471, I. P. C. and sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment. The facts of the ease are as follows: - On the 4th June 1901 a deed of sale, purporting to have been executed on the 2nd June 1901 by one Sadu Gazi in favour of Asimuddi, the present accused, was presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar of Barisal. Sadu Gazi did not appear on that date; but on appearance he denied execution. It is not shown that the accused appeared before the Sub-Registrar then. The matter was reported by the Sub-Registrar to the District Magistrate; and the District Magistrate on the 17th October 1901 ordered a judicial enquiry to be made under sec. 202, C. Cr. P. The enquiry was made over to a Deputy Magistrate, Mr. Hazra. On his transfer, it was made over to another Deputy Magistrate, Moulvi Iskander Ally. The enquiry was completed by a third Deputy Magistrate, Babu Profulla Sanker Sen; and it was reported that the document was a forgery. Proceedings were therefore taken against the accused and he was committed to the Court of the Sessions Judge and tried as already mentioned. 2. Now, the charge against the accused was that he, on the 21st day of January 1902, at Barisal, fraudulently and dishonestly used a forged document (Ex. A) which purported to be a kobala executed by Sadu Gazi as genuine, knowing it to be forged, before Moulvi Iskander Ally, Deputy Magistrate, and thereby committed an offence punishable under sec. 471, I. P. C. The Sessions Judge has found him guilty, but the Assessors believed the document to be a genuine one and acquitted him. 3. The learned pleader for the Appellant contends that on the 21st day of January 1902, when his client is said to have fraudulently and dishonestly used the document, he did not use it at all. There was subsequently a suit before the Munsif of Barisal in which the present Appellant sued to enforce registration. But the present charge has nothing whatever to do with the proceedings before the Munsif and is confined to the proceedings before the Deputy Magistrate, Moulvi Iskander Ally, who was enquiring into the case under sec. There was subsequently a suit before the Munsif of Barisal in which the present Appellant sued to enforce registration. But the present charge has nothing whatever to do with the proceedings before the Munsif and is confined to the proceedings before the Deputy Magistrate, Moulvi Iskander Ally, who was enquiring into the case under sec. 202, C. Cr. P. In that case the Deputy Magistrate, no doubt, called upon the accused to state whether the document was genuine or forged and the accused stated that it was a genuine document, really executed by Sadu Gazi. He is said by the Sessions Judge to have made this deposition as a witness. But we are informed by the Junior Government Pleader, who appears for the Crown, that he was not put on oath and that he made a simple statement on that occasion, without having been sworn. It, therefore, appears to us to be impossible to prosecute the accused for perjury. But however that may be, what he is charged with in this case is that he used the document in question on the 21st January 1902, that is, that he dishonestly used it as genuine, intending to cause wrongful gain to himself or wrongful loss to some other person. It is impossible to say that he used the document on that occasion. The use of a forged document which is contemplated by sec. 471, I. P. C, is such use as causes wrongful gain or wrongful loss. That is to say, that section applies to the case of a person who appears before some other person, or before a Court, with a document and endeavours to induce that person or Court to do some act which he or it would not do if it was known to be a forgery. Now, the accused did not use the document in this case in that way. He never used the document at all. It had been forwarded by the Sub-Registrar to the District Magistrate and the District Magistrate sent it to the Deputy Magistrate, Moulvi Islander Ally; and all that the accused was called upon to do was to say whether it was true or false. He may have falsely declared it to be genuine when it was false and when he knew it to be false. He may have falsely declared it to be genuine when it was false and when he knew it to be false. But we cannot consider that he used it so as to make himself amenable to the provisions of sec. 471, I. P. C. He may have used the document before the Munsif when he brought a suit to enforce registration; but he is not charged in this case with using the document before the Munsif. He is charged with using it before the Deputy Magistrate, Moulvi Iskander Ally; and we do not think he can be said to have committed any offence on the 21st January 1902, punishable under sec. 471, I. P. C. We therefore set aside the conviction of and sentence passed upon the Appellant, Asimuddi, and direct that he be set at liberty.