Intentional false statements are essential for establishing perjury, and the possibility of an innocent explanation must be considered.

Kinkhede—The petitioner Bhagirathi is an illiterate Kunbi woman aged 30 years and resident of mouza Dhanora. She has a minor son by name Gulab. On 17-3-1922 when her father who used to adivse her in her affairs was absent she was approached by: (1) Punjaji (who owned field Survey No. 16 sub-division called 'thadicha' of mouza Dhanora); (2) Ganpati Kunbi; (3) Maroti Teli; and (4) Govind Sonar, with a proposal that she should purchase the field for her minor son. That when she was pressed by them to purchase the same, she, acting on the assurance of the latter three persons, agreed to purchase it for Rs. 3,000 and paid Rs. 803 as earnest money immediately. She also paid Rs. 158 in satisfaction of a mortgage debt due by Punjaji to Ganpat and promised to pay Rs. 2,037 at the time of registration the next day. Accordingly the sale deed was written and registered on 18-3-1922. It was recited therein that the property was put into the vendees possession that day. The consideration was thus duly paid and the document was duly attested by Maroti and Govind. That about 2 or 3 weeks thereafter, Bhagirathi sent her servants with ploughs to cultivate the land but they were wrongfully obstructed by Ganpat and Govind who then for the first time disclosed that the field was leased to Ganpat for a period of 7 years out of which 5 years were still to expire.

2. The petitioner could not consequently secure possession. Her complaint therefore was that she was deceived into entering into the transaction by all the four persons, and particularly by the latter three who were acquainted with her; she says that she would not have done so but for the suppression by them of the material fact that there was a subsisting lease.

3. Bhagirathi accordingly lodged a complaint under S.420, Indian Penal Code, against the aforesaid four persons on 13-6-22. This complaint bears the thumb impression of Bhagirathi in her capacity as guardian of her minor son Gulabrao who is mentioned as the complainant in the case. This complaint does not bear any verification clause apparently because the Code of Criminal Procedure does not lay down verification as one of the essentials of a valid complaint, possibly because it provides for the verification of the allegations by the oral examination of the complainant by the Magistrate himself under S. 200 of the Code. However Bhagirathi was treated as if she was the complainant and was examined on 13-6-1922 by Mr. Lee upon oath and the substance of her examination was reduced to writing as required by S. 200, Criminal Procedure Code, and the same was marked with her thumb impression. She was also examined as Witness No. 1 for the prosecution an the 2nd August 1922 by the same Magistrate, Mr. Lee. After hearing some more evidence, the Magistrate on 17- 8-1922 passed an order discharging Maroti under S. 203, Criminal Procedure Code. The rest of the accused were examined on 6-9-1922. The arguments were heard and charges were framed against the three accused in due course. The prosecution witnesses were recalled for cross-examination but for some reason or the other the case could not be finished by Mr. Lee. Before Mr. Rau, who succeeded him, the three accused claimed a re-trial. Bhagirathi was therefore examined afresh on 6-1-23 as Witness No. 1 for prosecution by the new Magistrate who after examining 4 other witnesses discharged the remaining three accused on 16-2-1923.

4. Maroti Teli who was discharged by Mr. Lee on 17-8-1922 applied on 7-4-1923 to Mr. Rau for sanction to prosecute Bhagirathi for offences under Ss.211 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code. Notice wa3 issued to her to show cause. She filed a written statement, and Mr. Rau after hearing the arguments passed orders refusing to grant the sanction applied for. Maroti therefore moved the Sessions Judge for the necessary sanction. The Sessions Judge agreed with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate so far as the refusal to grant sanction for prosecution under S. 211, Indian Pen