JUDGMENT 1. This is a rule, calling upon the Magistrate of the District to show cause why the conviction of and sentence passed on the applicant, under sec. 193, I. P. C., should not be set aside, on the grounds set forth in his application. The applicant, it appears, gave evidence in a land registration proceeding. In that proceeding he said:-" Basanti Kuar became corrupt and went away. Ramdulari alone is hissadar in Haranti and Behorampur. She alone is in possession of the interests recorded in the name of Basanti." 2. Now, the applicant before us has been prosecuted for making this statement, which was false and which he knew to be false; and he has been found guilty, under sec. 193, I. P. C., of giving false evidence. 3. The above rule was obtained on the ground that the deposition of the applicant was inadmissible in evidence, as according to the Rules of tin- Board of Revenue, a deposition of a witness should be taken, as directed by the Code of Civil Procedure, by the presiding officer and not by an amla of the Court, and the Deputy Collector who recorded the deposition did not take it in accordance with the provisions of the CPC because his evidence was not read over and interpreted to the applicant. 4. Now, we have been referred to note 1 to sec. 53 of Act VII (B. C.) of 1876 (to be found in The Land Registration Manual, 1904, p. 27) in which it is said that " the depositions of witnesses are to be taken, as directed in the Code of Civil Procedure, by the presiding officer, and not by the amla of the Court." This rule was passed in the course of the Board's proceedings on the 24th March 1877, No. 119. But we find that this is not a rule drawn up by the Board under sec. 88 of the Land Registration Act. Therefore it has not the force of law: and the Deputy Collector who recorded the deposition of the applicant was not bound to comply with this direction. That being so, we think that the record of the deposition of the applicant is not inadmissible. 5. The next point taken before us is that there is no finding that the statement made by the applicant was false to his knowledge. In our opinion there is such a finding. That being so, we think that the record of the deposition of the applicant is not inadmissible. 5. The next point taken before us is that there is no finding that the statement made by the applicant was false to his knowledge. In our opinion there is such a finding. The first Court convicted the accused of intentionally giving false evidence; and the Sessions Judge says: " It has been proved that this statement was made in December, more than three months after the application was filed. Basanti was in the village and the accused was well aware of it." 6. There appear to us, therefore, to be no grounds for interfering with the proceedings of the Court below, and we discharge this rule. The applicant, who is now on bail, will be committed to jail to work out the remainder of his sentence.