V. B. RAJU, J. ( 1 ) I find that in this case the learned Magistrate has called for the whole record of another case and has actually exhibited the origi- nal depositions given by the Panchas in the previous Special Case No. 6 of 1960. The learned Magistrate has ignored the instructions contained in Rule 34 in Chapter II of the Bombay High Court Criminal Manual 1960 Original depositions in other cases should not be marked as Exhi- bits unless it is very necessary to do so. Ordinarily certified copies of depositions would serve the purpose and original record should not be sent for. The instructions of the High Court contained in Rule 34 in Chapter II of the Bombay High Court Criminal Manual 1960 should be strictly followed by the Magistrates. ( 2 ) FOR the reasons given in my judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 1963 (State v. Rameshbhai VII G. L. R. 439) this appeal against the acquittal of the second Panch is dismissed. According to the prosecution both the Panchas were present at the time of the panchnama and both of them gave false evidence in their depositions in Special Case No. 6 of 1960 In the present prosecution the evidence led by the prosecution and the evidence led by the defence is substantially the same and does not call for any additional remarks. ( 3 ) THE only additional argument advanced by the learned Govern- ment Pleader is that there is an admission made by the accused that the incident happened on 5-12-59 and that therefore the case of the defence that the panchnama was signed at 11 A. M. on 5-12-59 must be false because according to the prosecution the panchnama was only made at 1 P. M. Regarding the alleged admission by the second Panch Hemang the respondent the learned Government Pleader refers to Ex. 8 his deposition in Special Case No. 6 of 1960 and in particular to the follo- wing sentence contained therein:-ON 5-12-59 I was called from College by P. S. I. Hirubhai the prosecution case is that the deposition given by Hemang in Special Case No. 6 of 1960 is false. So according to the prosecution itself the above sentence is false. In fact it is the prosecution case that the cont- ents of Ex. 8 are false. So according to the prosecution itself the above sentence is false. In fact it is the prosecution case that the cont- ents of Ex. 8 are false. The learned Government Pleader contends that all the questions put to the accused by the learned Magistrate during his statement under sec. 342 Cr. P. C. refer to the date 5-12-59. It is true that one of the questions mentions 5-12-59 but the other questions do not mention this date. In answer to the following question It is alleged that you were explained that a trap was being laid to catch P. C. Ram- chandra Balu and the first part of the panchnama Ex. 11 was drawn up there and signed by you. What have you to say about it? the respon- dent gave the following answer I had not gone to the house of Hirubhai at all. A constable came to call me while I was practicing in the college. On coming out I saw Hirubhai. He was known to me. I therefore signed a yellow paper at two places and a white paper. The signatures on Ex. 11 are mine. We cannot treat this answer given by the respondent as admission that the incident had happened on 5-12-59. As observed by the Patna High Court in Sardar Bahadur Sardar Indra Singh v. The Commi- ssioner of Income Tax Bihar and Orissa I. L. R. 22 Patna 55 at p. 68 an admission must be construed literally and strictly and literally construing the answer of the accused it cannot be said that he admitted that the incident happened on 5-12-59. In any case this is not a case in which the accused can be convicted on the evidence of the police officer and Deepak. This is not a case in which on the evidence of the P. S. I. and Deepak alone there can be a conviction because if that is done no Panch can have the courage of speaking against the police in any crimi- nal case. Before we hold that the accused is guilty of perjury we must have sufficient evidence to prove that his statement is false. ( 4 ) THE appeal is therefore dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .