JUDGMENT Lort-Williams, J. - In this case, the Petitioner was charged with and convicted of an offence under sec. 193, Indian Penal Code (2nd Part) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. He appealed to the Sessions Judge at Hooghly who dismissed his appeal. The charge against him was that he had interpolated the word "" in Bengali, meaning " not," in a First Information Report at a time when the document was in the custody of the Court. This first information had been lodged by the Petitioner on the 13th June, 1933, before the officer-in-charge of Chandi Tala Police Station. The information was lodged at Gangadharpur when the officer was on tour and, therefore, it was not recorded in the proper police form prescribed. In this report, the Petitioner alleged that he had been cheated of Rs. 500 by some persons who had told him that they could forge Government Currency Notes and that if he paid them this money, they would return to him Rs. 1,000 for it. The Petitioner, therefore, complained to the police charging these persons with cheating. After the police investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted, and at the time of the trial in the Court of the Magistrate, the Petitioner told an entirely different story, with the result that these persons were discharged on the 18th November, 1933. 2. Nothing was heard of any further proceedings against these persons, or any civil proceedings for malicious prosecution by these persons against the Petitioner: nor was there any suggestion that any body had hinted at any likely proceedings, criminal or civil, arising out of this matter. Yet three months later, the Petitioner applied for a copy of the First Information Report. This was on the 2nd February and on the 9th the copy was ready. The Petitioner came on the 17th for delivery of the copy to him, and as soon as it was offered to him, he said that it was an incorrect copy as the word "", " not," was missing between the words "" (writing) and "" (been) in the last line of the First Information Report. The original which had been returned to the Record Room of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Serampore was sent for, and it was found that the word " " ( " not") actually appeared in the original. 3. The original which had been returned to the Record Room of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Serampore was sent for, and it was found that the word " " ( " not") actually appeared in the original. 3. I have examined the original, and this word has not been written in on the top of the line, or in any other way to draw particular attention to it, but it has been slipped in in the space between the last letter of the previous word to which I have referred and the first letter of the succeeding one. If it had not been encircled, as now, with a circle in red ink, I confess that I should never have noticed that a letter had been inserted. Upon a close inspection, and with a magnifying glass, it is apparent that the ink is slightly different from the ink used in the body of the document. 4. The copyist who copied this report distinctly remembered that "" was not there when he copied it. Accordingly, he reported the matter to the Deputy Magistrate-in-charge, Mr. B. C. Chatterjee, who held an enquiry into the matter and submitted a report to the Sub-Divisional Officer of Serampore to the effect that the document had been tampered with. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate held a departmental enquiry. He took cognizance of the case, and eventually there was a trial. The case for the prosecution was that this word "" had been interpolated by the accused in the body of the first information report between the 9th and 17th February, i.e., after the copy had been prepared in the copying department. The case for the defence was that when the Petitioner lodged the First Information Report, he became apprehensive that by doing so, he might lay himself open to a charge of abetting forgery of Government Currency Notes and might be prosecuted for this. Therefore he put the word "" in, when the Sub-Inspector was not looking, when he first made the report, and that this word had been missed by those who had subsequently copied it. 5. Therefore he put the word "" in, when the Sub-Inspector was not looking, when he first made the report, and that this word had been missed by those who had subsequently copied it. 5. The learned Sessions Judge at once fastened upon this story and sought to use it as an admission, simply because it was in the written statement made by the accused, and, coupled with the evidence of the copyist whom he believed and who swore that the word " " was not in the document when he copied it, he came to the conclusion that he was entitled to uphold the conviction of the accused. In my opinion, he was not justified in doing this. If the Crown sought to rely upon an admission such as this in order to fill up a blank in their evidence which, if unfilled, must have resulted in an acquittal, they must take the so-called admission in 1oto. The statement was that he had written this word "" at the time when he made the First Information Report He made no statement or admission that he wrote this " " at any other time in his life. By extending the period between the date of the First Information Report and the 9th February, 1934, for the purpose of argument to say thirty years, it will be realised at once that. an admission or statement that the accused had written a certain word in the year 1900 cannot be held to be an admission simply that he wrote that word, and by coupling it with other evidence held to have been proved that he wrote the word thirty years after-wards, namely, in 1934. 6. It will be seen that this conviction depends entirely upon this so-called admission. The learned Judge went on to say that as the writing had been admitted, the only points for decision were, therefore, when the interpolation was made, and with what intention. As to the time the prosecution called the Sub-Inspector who recorded the First Information Report. He swore that the accused had no opportunity of tampering with the report after it had once been recorded. That, taken as it stands and if believed, would alone dispose of the prosecution case. As to the time the prosecution called the Sub-Inspector who recorded the First Information Report. He swore that the accused had no opportunity of tampering with the report after it had once been recorded. That, taken as it stands and if believed, would alone dispose of the prosecution case. However, the Judge, instead of dealing with the prosecution case on its merits, turned his attention to the defence case to see whether there were materials available to bolster up the case for the prosecution, and he came to the conclusion that the statement made by the accused about the stealthy interpolation of the word was very improbable. He argued with himself that if the Appellant had changed his mind then and there, there was nothing to prevent him from telling the Sub-Inspector about it on the spot. If he had in mind the possibility of being charged with abetting the fabrication of Government Currency Notes, that would have been an honest and probable course on the part of the Appellant. The Judge also thought it very improbable that it did not occur to the accused till after he had signed the First Information Report that he was making himself liable for the offence of forgery of Government Currency Notes. He went on to say that the accused was an educated man of the world, aged 55, and not a mere inexperienced and ignorant boy from the village, and, therefore, must have known that he was in danger of criminal prosecution, and that when he lodged the First Information Report, he must have done it with full knowledge of the consequences. 7. The learned Judge devoted several pages to indulging in assumptions, presumptions and imaginations, none of which were based on a scintilla of evidence of any kind. Finally, he said that he ref used to believe that the accused had a sudden brain-wave at the psychological moment, after the First Information Report had been recorded and signed by him, or that he was favoured by a curious chance of interpolating the word in the First Information Report at that time. 8. Then he went on to deal with the evidence of the copyist who emphatically denied that the word "" was in the Ejhar when it passed through his hands. 8. Then he went on to deal with the evidence of the copyist who emphatically denied that the word "" was in the Ejhar when it passed through his hands. I think it is conceivable that this evidence was honestly given and that it was quite possible that copies were made without this word being noticed. The clerks make a very large number of similar copies, and after they are prepared, these depositions are read over to and signed by the deponents, and the clerks would never expect the absurd presence of the word " not" in such a sentence, being unprepared for such an unusual thing. I am quite prepared to believe that they honestly thought that the word "" was not there when they made these copies 9. Then the learned Judge said that there were ample grounds for holding that the First Information Report did not contain the word "" upto the 9th February, 1934, and that the interpolation must have been clone between the 9th and the 17th. As I have stated, the Sub-Inspector swore that it was impossible for the accused to have got possession of this document during that period. But apparently during the period between the 13th or 14th and the 17th the Sub-Inspector was not responsible for the document, which was then in the record room. The clerk in charge of the records was not called, and in view of the statement made by the copyist who was in charge of the records between the 9th and 13th, that it was impossible for the accused to get possession of it during those days, it is a reasonable and proper presumption for us to make, that if the second witness also had been called, he would have said that between the 13th and the 17th, it was equally impossible for the accused to have got possession of it. 10. That presumption once made, the case for the Crown is completely disposed of. It would have been quite possible for the Crown to have cleared this matter up, even if they could not rely entirely upon their officials and servants to tell the truth. 10. That presumption once made, the case for the Crown is completely disposed of. It would have been quite possible for the Crown to have cleared this matter up, even if they could not rely entirely upon their officials and servants to tell the truth. They could have given evidence about the hours during which the office or the Record Room was open, and where this document was kept, whether it was in such a position in the room that it could easily have been got hold of by the accused, what persons were in the room during certain hours, especially whether the accused had been seen anywhere near the place where the document had been kept during those days; still more important, whether he had been in the town of Serampore between the 9th and the 17th. All this is left unexplained. It is quite possible, and not unprobable, that the accused was in Calcutta during that period, or at any other place. There is no evidence to show whether he was near the office or had any opportunity whatever to get hold of this document during that period of time upon which the whole prosecution is based. The learned Judge went on to say that this must have been, or that that must have been so. I always think that it is very suspicious when the prosecution has to depend upon statements such as " this must have been so " or " that must have been so," in the absence of any evidence that it ever was so. 11. For these reasons, I am clearly of opinion that this case was not proved. It may be a case of the greatest possible suspicion, it may be that we do not know exactly why this individual made this interpolation. Sec. 192 applies only if he did it with the intention of its being used in some judicial proceeding, and I should have thought that those words meant that some judicial proceeding was contemplated. I should have thought that a mere idea in the mind of any body that some document might at some future date be used in some judicial proceeding would not be sufficient to bring him within the ambit of sec. 192, and so make it a crime. I should have thought that a mere idea in the mind of any body that some document might at some future date be used in some judicial proceeding would not be sufficient to bring him within the ambit of sec. 192, and so make it a crime. What was done in the present case could not be said to amount to a crime when there was not the faintest possibility of any judicial proceeding following the alleged fabrication. 12. For all these reasons, I think that the conviction and sentence must be set aside, and the Petitioner will be set at liberty forthwith. 13. The Petitioner, who is on bail, will be discharged from his bail bond. Jack, J. 14. The Petitioner has been convicted under sec. 193 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to six month's rigorous imprisonment on the charge that he had interpolated a word in the first information report which he made at the Chanditolla police station on the 18th June, 1933. In this information he alleged that he had been cheated out of Rs. 500 by some persons who had represented to him that they would forge Government currency notes with the help of the money and would pay him Rs. 1000 soon after. When they failed to make good the money, the Petitioner made this complaint charging them with cheating. 15. At the time of the trial of the cheating case, the Petitioner said that this was an ordinary loan and had nothing to do with the manufacture of forged notes. Subsequently, the Appellant wanted to bring a civil suit for the money, and in connection with this he applied for copies of the information which he gave at the thana. When he received the copy he told the comparing clerk who delivered it to him that the word "Na" ) had been omitted from the statement at the end of the information to the effect that the information had been correctly recorded. The word "Na"() between the words and would change the meaning of the statement, and indicate that it had not been correctly recorded. The comparing clerk at once said that it was absurd to suggest that such a word was there, but when the original was called, it was found that in fact the word " Na " ( ) had been inserted in the original. The comparing clerk at once said that it was absurd to suggest that such a word was there, but when the original was called, it was found that in fact the word " Na " ( ) had been inserted in the original. An enquiry was held and the accused was sent up on the present charge. 16. In the course of the enquiry he made a statement to the effect that he had him-self inserted the word " Na "() in the original first information report with his fountain pen. The accused also said during the trial in his statement under sec. 342, that in fact he made this interpolation, but that he made it at the time just after the record was taken by the Sub-Inspector. He said that he made it because he thought that the statement that he had lent money to people in order to enable them to manufacture false currency notes, might go against him. 17. In order to find the accused guilty of an offence under sec. 193, of the Indian Penal Code, it must be found first of all that he made the interpolation in the first information report, secondly, that the interpolation is false, and thirdly, that he made it intending that it should be used in evidence in a judicial proceeding and fourthly, that the false statement so made would cause any person, who in such proceeding v/as to form an opinion upon the evidence, to entertain an erroneous opinion touching any point material to the result of such proceeding. 18. There can be no doubt that he made the alteration in the statement recorded by the Sub-Inspector and both the Magistrate who tried the case and the Sessions Judge who heard the appeal have given very good reasons f or finding that he made it. In the first place, he admits that he made it, both in a statement (Ex. 3) made before a Magistrate in the course of a departmental enquiry and in his statement under sec. 342, Criminal Procedure Code. No doubt he says that he made it at the time the information was recorded, but that part of his statement is obviously false--because there could have been no motive for making the alteration at that time when the accused was engaged in trying to establish a case of cheating. 342, Criminal Procedure Code. No doubt he says that he made it at the time the information was recorded, but that part of his statement is obviously false--because there could have been no motive for making the alteration at that time when the accused was engaged in trying to establish a case of cheating. Had he changed his mind at the time, he could have simply withdrawn the information. That it was not made at the time, is also clear from the fact that five days later the Sub-Inspector issued two sets of copies of the statement in neither of which the word "Na" appears. Then on the 26th October, on the application of one of' the accused in the cheating case, a copyist issued a copy in which the word does not appear. Again on the 9th of February, a certified copy was issued to the accused which does not contain the word. It was also compared with the original by a comparing clerk. The men who wrote and compared these copies have been examined and they say that the word was not in the original. They were likely to have noticed it as it is in black ink as compared with the green ink in which the statement was recorded, and this is consistent with the accused's statement that he made it with his fountain pen, whereas his signature is in the same ink in which the statement is recorded. But apart from the difference in colour of the ink, anyone who is familiar with Bengali could hardly have failed to notice it and it would be absurd to suppose that all these men happened by accident to omit the word " Na " in their copies other-wise correctly made. It is most improbable that the Sub-Inspector would not have noticed it when making the copies made by him and there is no possibility that both the copyists would have omitted it. They ordinarily copy mechanically word for word and the comparing clerk whose duty it is to compare the copy with the original could not have failed to notice it, as it completely altered the meaning of the sentence. When the accused said that the word " Na " was in the original, he said at once that such a word there is absurd. When the accused said that the word " Na " was in the original, he said at once that such a word there is absurd. Further, had it been there at the trial of the cheating case, there can be no doubt that it would have attracted the attention of the Magistrate and the Public Prosecutor and would have been referred to then by the accused in support of his contention that in fact the statement was not correctly recorded. 19. There can, therefore, be no doubt whatever that the alteration in the statement was not made up to the 9th of February when the certified copy was compared with the original by the comparing clerk. As soon as the copy was made over to the accused, he said it was wrong in that the word " Na " had been omitted. The original was then called for and in it the interpolation was found. It is clear, therefore, that it had been made within a few days of the date on which it was found and subsequent to the date of comparison and that the Petitioner knew it had been made. There is no evidence and no reason to think that anyone else had any interest in making it, whereas the Petitioner admits that he was anxious to make it because he thought it might go against him if he gave Rs. 500 to people in the circumstances noted, knowing them to be manufacturers of forged notes. 20. The circumstances, therefore, show that the alteration was made by him or by somebody else on his behalf and with his knowledge and when this evidence is taken with his statement that he made the alteration as it stands at the time the information was recorded, there can be no doubt whatever that it was made by him or at his instigation shortly before the 17th February. It was probably impossible for the prosecution to show that he had an opportunity of making it--for it must have been done with the connivance of one of the clerks or one of the peons who packed it for dispatch to the Record Room and who would strenuously deny it and it would be useless to show merely that he was in the town or even at the office during the time it could have been made. Direct evidence that he had an opportunity of making it would of course have reinforced the prosecution evidence, but apart from that I am quite satisfied on the evidence that he made it or had it made shortly before the 17th of February. 21. It remains to consider whether he made it, intending that it should be used in a judicial proceeding. I may say that if he had in fact made the interpolation at the time he states, in my opinion he would have been guilty of an offence under sec. 193, I. P. C.--for he undoubtedly intended the information to be used in the judicial proceedings in which it was used, viz., in the cheating case. But since the interpolation was made after the disposal of that case, this is where the prosecution appears to fail, for the Petitioner states that it was his object to prevent it appearing in the judicial proceeding which he anticipated regarding his assistance to manufacturers of forged notes and this is probably true. He intended also to use the statement in support of a civil suit for the money, as he says in his statement (Ex. 3). But in such a suit it would not apparently have been material to the result of the suit, and therefore does not come under the mischief of the section. There is nothing to show that he anticipated a proceeding against him under sec. 182 or sec. 211 and anticipated that it should be used in such a proceeding. This element of the offence under sec. 193 has, therefore, not been established by the prosecution, and the accused must, therefore, be acquitted. The accused who is on bail must be discharged from his bail bind.