JUDGMENT J.D. Sharma, J. - This revision raises an important question, namely, whether a person filing in a court of law a document purporting to be, but not verified as, an affidavit commits an offence under Secs. 193 and 199, I.P.C. 2. The brief facts are :-The applicant and five others were accused in a case filed by the opposite party Jayanti Prasad Joshi under Secs. 148, 379, 427 and 447, I. P. C. The complaint was transferred to the court of Sri K. S. Pathak, Special Magistrate first class, who, after recording the statement of the complainant Sec. 200, Cr. P. C. and making an enquiry under Sec. 202, Cr. P. C. issued processes against the applicant and others. On the 25th March 1960 the applicant made an application for transfer in the court of the District Magistrate, Dehra Dun, supported by a document purporting to be an affidavit but not verified, as required by law. A report was called for from the Special Magistrate who denied some of the allegations made in the so-called, affidavit. The application for transfer was dismissed by the District Magistrate on the 4th May 1960. 3. Thereupon the opposite party Jayanti Prasad Joshi made an application under Sec. 476, Cr. P. C. in the court of the District Magistrate alleging that the averments made by the applicant Darshan Singh in the affidavit were false, and therefore a complaint under Sec. 193, I. P. C. be filed against him. 4. The District Magistrate dismissed the application holding that no offence under Sec. 193, I. P. C. had been committed as the so called affidavit was not properly verified, and otherwise also it was not expedient to file a complaint. 5. In appeal the learned Sessions Judge took the view that the omission to verify the affidavit was only an informality, which, as provided in Secs. 199 and 200, I. P. C. did not make the declaration inadmissible. He therefore set aside the order of the District Magistrate and directed the filing of a complaint under Secs. 193 and 199, I. P. C. against the applicant. 6. The contention on behalf of the applicant is that the omission to verify the affidavit was not just an informality and no offence had been committed by him. He therefore set aside the order of the District Magistrate and directed the filing of a complaint under Secs. 193 and 199, I. P. C. against the applicant. 6. The contention on behalf of the applicant is that the omission to verify the affidavit was not just an informality and no offence had been committed by him. Sec. 191, I. P. C. says :- "Whoever being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence." An offence of giving false evidence is committed if a person makes a false statement or makes a statement which he knows or believes to be false or does not believe it to be true when he is legally bound (a) by an oath or an express provision of law to state the truth or (b) to make a declaration upon any subject. It is necessary that the accused should be legally bound by oath before a competent authority. Relying upon the authority of Moti Ram v. Emp., 26 Cr.L.J. 566 it was urged that even where no oath is administered to a witness in a judicial proceeding in a court of justice the witness is bound to state the truth, and if he fails to do so, he is guilty of an offence under Sec. 193, I.P.C. It is true that an oath or solemn affirmation is not a sine qua non to the offence of giving false evidence in a court of law for a witness is bound to state the truth in a court of law whether oath is administered to him or not. This is expressly provided in Sec. 13 of the Indian Oaths Act, which says :- "No omission to take any oath or make any affirmation, no substitution of any one for any other of them, and no irregularity whatever, in the form in which any one of them is administered, shall invalidate any proceeding or render inadmissible any evidence whatever, in or in respect of which such omission, substitution or irregularity took place, or shall affect the obligation of a witness to state the truth." However the applicant was not a witness in any judicial proceeding in. a court of law. He was not also bound by an express provision of law to state the truth. If a person is not bound by an express provision of law to state the truth, he cannot be charged with giving false evidence. In certain cases the law requires a declaration from a person by verification in a pleading, such as a plaint and written statement, and if such a declaration is made falsely it will come under Sec. 191, but filing an affidavit in support of an application for transfer is not a declaration upon any subject required by law. 7. No offence has also been committed under Sec. 199, I. P. C. The essential ingredients of an offence under Sec. 199, I. P. C. are (1) making of a declaration which a court or a public servant is bound or authorised by law to receive in evidence; (2) making a false statement in such declaration knowing or believing it to be false; (3) such false statement should be touching any point material to the object for which the declaration is made or used. Declaration means any statement of fact in the form simply of a declaration which for the purpose of proof of the fact declared to has by itself all the legal force of evidence given on oath or the solemn affirmation substituted for an oath - in short a declaration receivable in lieu of personal testimony. Such a declaration includes an affidavit in cases in which evidence may be given by affidavit. Each High Court has prescribed the rules according to which an affidavit is to be drafted and verified. Such a declaration includes an affidavit in cases in which evidence may be given by affidavit. Each High Court has prescribed the rules according to which an affidavit is to be drafted and verified. Rule 19 of the rules framed in this behalf by this Court says :- "The person before whom an affidavit is made shall certify at the foot of the affidavit the fact of the making of the affidavit before him and the time and place when and which it was made and shall for the purpose of identification mark and initial any exhibits referred to in the affidavit". Admittedly there was no verification and therefore the document, although purporting to be an affidavit, was not an affidavit. In other words, it was not a declaration which any court of justice was bound or authorised by law to receive as evidence, and therefore no offence was committed under Sec. 199, I. P. C. 8. The non-verification of an affidavit is not merely an informality as no declaration can be used as an affidavit unless it is verified according to rules. 9. The revision is accordingly allowed and the order dated the 4th May 1961 passed by the learned Sessions Judge is set aside.