JUDGMENT

Richardson, J. - The appellant, Ramesh Chandra Das, was tried by the Sessions Judge of Chittagong and a jury on three charges of perjury framed u/s 193 of the Penal Code, The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the Sessions Judge sentenced the appellant on each charge to three years' rigorous imprisonment, directing at the same time that the sentences should run concurrently.

2. The charges relate to a will bearing the date the 19th August, 1913, alleged to have been executed by the late Dr. Rajani Kanta Das Gupta who died on the 28th August 1913. He left him surviving five daughters and two brothers, Ramesh Chandra Das, the appellant, and Mahendra Lal Das, a pleader, who died on the 8th April, 1914. of the daughters, the eldest only was married at the time of her father's death; three have since been married and the youngest is still unmarried.

3. The valuation of the estate of the deceased accepted by the Collector for purposes of duty was Rs. 32,715, from which Rs. 4,250 must be deducted on account of debts. According to the terms of the will, which is a short and simple document, the testator bequeathed to his three nephews all the moveable, and Immovable properties which he had, and appointed his brothers to make management as their guardians. The bequest to the nephews is subject to a direction that his brothers should marry his four unmarried daughters to suitable bridegrooms by "spending ten to twelve thousand rupees." The testator further directed that his eldest daughter should receive Rs. 2,000 out of a sum of Rs. 6,000 owing to him by her father-in-law, and that his wife should receive Rs. 2,000 out of his estate and also expenses for spiritual acts and travelling to holy-places.

4. On the 8th November 1913, an application was made in the name of the testator's widow, Durgesha Nandini, for letters of administration with copy of this will annexed, and letters were subsequently granted. On the 6th January 1915 the testator's second daughter applied for their revocation, and they were revoked, on the 23rd September 1915. In the course of the latter proceedings the appellant gave evidence in support of the will. According to the case for the prosecution the will is a forgery and the appellant committed perjury. The three statements in respect of which perjury is specifically assigned, occur in his deposition as recorded by the Court.

5. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends, in the first instance, as to the deposition of the appellant recorded in the Court of Probate, that the requirements of the law were not complied with, and that in consequence, the deposition is not admissible in evidence, and there is no legal foundation for the charges of perjury.

6. The point turns on Rule 5 of Order XVIII of the Civil Procedure Code. The rule, so far as it need be quoted, is as follows: In cases in which an, appeal is allowed, the evidence of each witness shall be taken down in writing, in the language of the Court, by... the Judge, not ordinarily in the form of question and answer, but in that of a narrative, and, when completed shall be read over in the presence of the Judge and of the witness, and the Judge, shall, if necessary, correct the same and shall sign it." In the present case, the evidence was taken down by the Judge in English, the language of the Court, and was signed by the Judge, but, inasmuch as the appellant understood English, his evidence was not read over to him. He read it over himself, and at the end there is the following note initialled by the Judge: "Read over by witness himself and admitted to be correct." There is also a signature which may be that of the appellant. It is said that the signature is not proved. The reason is that the contention I am dealing with was not put forward at the trial. But as the rule does not require a witness to sign his evidence, it is entirely immaterial whether the signature is or is not that of the appellant.

7. The whole irregularity, if there was an irr