D. P. DESAI, J. ( 1 ) * * * * ( 2 ) WITH regard to the conviction of the appellant under sec. 198 read with sec. 193 of the Indian Penal Code it appears that the learned trial Judge convicted the appellant because the solvency certificate in this case was forged and it was used by the appellant. In doing so with respect to the learned Judge he did not notice the elements necessary for proving the offence under sec. 198 of the Indian Penal Code. In order to understand those elements both sec. 197 and 198 will have to be reproduced. They read:-197 Whoever issues or signs any certificate required by law to be given or signed or relating to any fact of which such certificate is by law admissible in evidence knowing or believing that such certificate is false in any material point shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence. 198 Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use any such certificate as a true certificate knowing the same to be false in any material point shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence. IT is clear that the words such certificate in sec. 198 refer to the certificate contemplated by sec. 197. Now the offence under sec. 197 can be committed in respect of certain specified certificates only. Therefore the offence under sec. 198 also can be committed in respect of those specified certificates only. The certificates specified by sec. 197 are (i) certificate required by some law to be given or signed and (ii) certificate relating to any fact of which such certificate is by some law admissible in evidence. Examples of certificates falling in the first category will be found in sec. 60 (1) (2) of the Indian Registration Act 1908 under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 60 the registering officer after having satisfied himself that the provisions of certain sections mentioned therein have been complied with has to endorse on the document a certificate containing the word registered together with the number and page of the book in which the document has been copied. Sub-sec. (2) lays down that such certificate shall be signed sealed and dated by the registering officer. Another part of subsec. (2) of sec. Sub-sec. (2) lays down that such certificate shall be signed sealed and dated by the registering officer. Another part of subsec. (2) of sec. 60 furnishes an example which would fall under the second category when it says that such certificate having been signed sealed and dated by the registering officer shall then be admissible for the purpose of proving that the document has been duly registered in manner provided in this Act and that the facts mentioned in the endorsement referred to in sec. 59 have occurred as therein mentioned. Another example of a certificate falling under the first category is to be found in secs. 3 and 5 of the Revenue Recovery Act 1890 Sec. 3 provides for sending by the Collector to the Collector of another district a certificate in the prescribed form when an arrears of land revenue is payable by the defaulter to the Collector sending the certificate and the defaulter has his property situated in another district. Sub-sec. (3) of sec. 3 lays down that the Collector of the other district shall on receiving the certificate proceed to recover the amount stated therein as if it were an arrear of land revenue which had accrued in his own district. Sec. 5 of the same Act provides another instance where any sum is recoverable as arrears of land revenue by any public officer other than the Collector or by any local authority. That also contemplates sending of a certificate of the amount to be recovered to the Collector of another district. Another instance of a certificate falling in the first category is to be found in sub-sec. (4) of sec. 33 of the Pharmacy Act 1948 That sub-section states Upon entry in the register of a name under this section the Registrar shall issue a certificate of registration in the prescribed form. Many more instances can be given of certificates which would fall under the first category. Examples of certificates falling under the second category will be found in sec. 51 1 (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code which deals with the question of proof of previous conviction. One of the methods of proof is by a certificate signed by the officer in charge of the jail in which the punishment or any part thereof was inflicted. . . . Another instance of certificate falling in the second category is to be found in sec. One of the methods of proof is by a certificate signed by the officer in charge of the jail in which the punishment or any part thereof was inflicted. . . . Another instance of certificate falling in the second category is to be found in sec. 129b of the Bombay Prohibition Act which inter alia provides that a certificate under the hand of registered medical practitioner or the Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government under sec. 129a or of an officer appointed under sub-sec. (1) of that section. . . . . may be used as evidence of the facts stated in such certificate. . . . . ( 3 ) IN the present case we are not concerned with the question of the solvency certificate falling in the second Category because no provision of law has been pointed out on behalf of the State to show that the solvency certificate would be admissible in evidence by the force of that provision. Ordinarily certificates given by a Government Officer or any other person would not be by themselves admissible in evidence and will have to be proved by the evidence of the person issuing the same. But in certain cases like those illustrated earlier such certificates become admissible in evidence by virtue of some statutory provision. Such certificates are contemplated as certificates which would fall in the second category. So far as the first category is concerned Mr. Vidhyarthi for the State was unable to point out any provision of law similar to the provisions extracted from different statutes as above which would require the Mamlatdar to issue or sign the solvency certificate. But. Mr. Vidhyarthi urged that the phrase required by law occurring in sec. 197 would only mean authorisation to issue or sign some certificate. He urged that the phrase would only mean authorisation of doing something which could not be said to be illegal. Having laid this ground for this submission he relied upon the resolution of the then Government of Bombay in the Revenue Department bearing No. MSG. RD. 2454 dated 10th May 1954 with regard to solvency certificate for production in Criminal Courts. Having laid this ground for this submission he relied upon the resolution of the then Government of Bombay in the Revenue Department bearing No. MSG. RD. 2454 dated 10th May 1954 with regard to solvency certificate for production in Criminal Courts. The relevant portion of the resolution a plain copy of which was made available to the Court reads:-THE Government of Bombay is pleased to authorise the Revenue Officers not below the rank of a Mamlatdar or Mahalkari to issue solvency certificates to the parties for production it Criminal Courts on payment of fees at Rs. 2/ (two rupees only) per certificate. The fees should be recovered in the shape of court fee stamps. IN the submission of Mr. Vidhyarthi this resolution satisfies one of the requirements of sec. 197 that the certificate should be required by some law to be issued or signed. Now the resolution is a mere authorisation of certain revenue officers to issue solvency certificates. This resolution cannot be equated with law. The phrase required by law occurring in sec. 197 has reference to some statutory requirement. If this phrase is held to contemplate some statutory requirement then Mr. Vidhyarthi conceded that the conviction of the appellant under sec. 198 cannot stand. ( 4 ) IN the present case the solvency certificate is not shown to be falling under sec. 197. It is not one of those specified certificates in respect of which an offence under sec. 197 or for that matter under sec. 198 can be committed. In the absence of this evidence therefore the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under sec. 198 read with sec. 193 of the Indian Penal Code cannot stand. ( 5 ) IN the result the appeal is partly allowed The conviction of the appellant under sec. 198 read with sec. 193 of the I. P. C. and the sentence of one years R. I. for that offence awarded by the learned trial Judge are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the said offence. The rest of the order of conviction and sentence under sec. 199 I P. C. and sec. 471 read will sec. 465 I. P. C is maintained. The appellant will surrender to his bail. .