Judgment

SHAH, J.: Jairam and three others- hereafter collectively called "the plaintiffs" -sued Babu Lal- appellant in this appeal-in the Court of the Munsiff, Koil District Aligarh, for a decree for possession of a strip of land, for removal of a wall and slab of stone and for an injunction restraining the making of certain constructions in the northern wall of the plaintiffs house. The plaintiffs claimed that Mohini wife of Jairam the first plaintiff had purchased the house occupied by them by sale deed dated August 1, 1932 from the vendor who was also named Mohini, who in her turn had purchased the house by sale deed dated July 25, 1917 from the original owner Kishan Lal.

2. Babu Lal who is the son of Kishan Lal pleaded that the vendor Mohini had acquired only a life interest in the house of by the deed under which the property was conveyed to her by Kishan Lal and the plaintiff s precesessor-in-interest had acquired no title under the sale deed dated August 1, 1932. In support of this plea Babu Lal gave evidence at the trial of the suit and tendered in evidence an agreement dated July 25, 1917 purported to be executed by Mohini to whom Kishan Lal had conveyed the house reciting that the sale deed in her favour was without consideration and that the she had only a life interest in the house.

3. The Trial Judge held that the agreement relied upon by Babu Lal was "not genuine and that Mohini predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs had under the sale deed dated August 1, 1932 acquired title to the house in dispute and on that footing decree the suit. In appeal to the District Court the finding that the agreement was not genuine was not challenged.

4. Before the suit was disposed of by the Munsiff the plaintiffs had applied that action be taken against Babu Lal under S. 479-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, because Babu Lal had given false evidence before the Court, that he had forged the agreement relied upon by him and that he had fabricated false evidence and had used such fabricated evidence at the trial, and had thereby committed offences punishable under Ss. 193, 209, 463 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The Munsiff did not dispose of the application by his judgment deciding the suit. After the disposal of the suit the plaintiffs moved the Munsiff for an order on the application filed by them. The Munsiff held that no action could be taken against Babu Lal for the offence of intentionally giving false evidence or intentionally fabricating false evidence for the purpose of being used in the suit for such action was barred by S. 479-A, Code of Criminal Procedure, but in his opinion it was expedient in the interest of justice that a complaint be filed against Babu Lal for offences "under Ss. 463 and 471 I. P. Code. Pursuant to this order of May 30, 1959a complaint was filed against Babu Lal charging him with committing an offence under Section 471 read with S. 463 Indian Penal Code by using the agreement dated July 25, 1917 knowing or having reason to believe that it was a forged document. The order passed by Trial Court was confirmed in appeal by the District Judge, Aligarh and a revision application to the High Court of Allahabad challenging the order was dismissed. With special leave Babu Lal has appealed to this Court.

5. Chapter XXXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure prescribes the procedure to be followed for prosecution of offenders in case of certain offences affecting the administration of justice. Section 476 sets out the procedure for prosecution of offenders for offences enumerated in S. 196(1)(b) and (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court is of opinion, that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an enquiry be made into any offence referred to in S. 195(1) (b) or (c) which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary record a finding to that effe