JUDGMENT 1. The Petitioner has been convicted of having given false evidence in a criminal (I) I. L. It. 28 Mad. 308 (1904). trial. The false statements alleged to have been made by him were proved by putting in the deposition recorded by the Sessions Judge. That deposition is, under sec. 91 of the Evidence Act, the only evidence admissible in proof of those statements; and under sec. 80 of the same Act, it is admissible only if It was taken in accordance with law. Now, in the present case, it is admitted that the deposition was not taken in accordance with law as it was not taken in accordance with the provisions of sec. 360, Cr. P. C, in that It was not read over to the witness in the presence of the accused or his pleader. It follows, therefore, that the deposition is not admissible in evidence and there has been no legal proof that the Petitioner made the false statements which he is charged with having made. 2. The same view was taken by the Madras High Court in Kamatchinathan v. Emperor I. L. R, 28 Mad. 308 (1904). Following that decision, we must hold that the conviction of the Petitioner in this case is illegal. We accordingly make the rule absolute, set aside the conviction and sentence and direct that the Petitioner be discharged.