Report No. 28
(Existing section 13)
No changes are proposed in existing section 13. As to the wide ambit of this section, the under-mentioned decisions may be seen1-2.
The scope of section 13 has been discussed elaborately in a recent case3, which points out, that section 13 cures three kinds of disobedience to the provisions of the Act:-
(i) disobedience by omission to administer either an oath or an affirmation;
(ii) disobedience by substituting an oath, where an affirmation had to be administered;
(iii) disobedience committed by the adoption of a wrong form of an oath or affirmation, when such oath or affirmation is, in fact, administered and there has been no omission to administer it. Each one is a distinct category of disobedience. (The third category has no association with the first two. The third category refers only to cases in which there has been an administration of oath or affirmation, but it was not administered in the form prescribed for that purpose.)
1. Mahomed Sugel v. King, AIR 1946 PC 3.
2. Lalaran v. State, AIR 1960 MP 59, holding that the section is not confined to cases where the omission to give oath is accidental.
3. C.K. Chandrasekhariah v. State of Mysore, AIR 1963 Mys 232.