288
that this option is given only to persons who have a religious belief and who are prepared to say that the taking of an cath
is unlawful according to their religious belief. The sec-
tion does not seem to provide for the case of persone who
have no religious belief. This case is provided for in
sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Ordinance, which is taken
from section 1 of the Caths Act, 1888.
Section 43(1) of the Evidence Ordinance, 1889, does not
give the option of affirmation to persone who are natives of
China.
This does not seem to be warranted. It is quite
possible that a native of China might be found who had a con-
scientious objection to taking an oath. It is also not al-
ways possible to ascertain a witness' a place of birth.
Further, there does not seem to be any reason why, in a case
of this kind, persons of Chinese race, religion and traditiona
who happen to have been born out of China should be treated
8.
}
ww
| INI
on a different fcoting from those born in China.
Section
7 of the Ordinance abandons this distinction.
9.
Section 44 of the Evidence Ordinance, 1889, provides
that every person who is neither a Christian nor of the Jew-
ish religion shall in lieu of an oath make a declaration.
In the first place this is inconsistent with section 43 of the same Ordinance, which gives in certain cases the alterna- tive of an affirmation. In the second place it denies to
anyone who is not a Christian or a Jew the right of taking
an oath at all.
In the third place, there seems to be
no reason why the declaration under section 44 should be in
Sub- a different form from the a'firmation under section 43. Bection (2) of section 7 of the ordinance provides that every