OBUL REDDI, J. :- This Criminal Revision Case is before us as it has been referred to a Division Bench by Narasimham J., on the question "whether cognizance can be taken of an offence under Section 211, I. P. C. on a private complaint". The controversy relates to the interpretation of the words, "when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court" occurring in Section 195 (1) (b), Criminal Procedure Code. Before we proceed to deal with the question referred to the Bench, it may be necessary to set out the relevant facts leading to the filing of the revision case.

2. A complaint was filed by the second respondent against the revision petitioners in the Court of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Jammalamadugu under Sections 193, 194, 195 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code. The first petitioner gave a report to the Village Munsif, Ulappalli, alleging that the second respondent who was armed with a gun shot one Udala Pedda Subba Reddi on 17-2-64 at about 9 A.M. and some other assailants caused injuries, which resulted in the death of Pedda Subba Reddi. This led to the second respondent being taken into custody by the Village Munsif and later by the Investigating Officer who arrived subsequently on the scene for investigation. The second respondent gave a petition to the investigating Officer representing that he had nothing to do with the offence of murder, that he was beaten up and his gun also was seized and that he has been falsely implicated. The Investigating Officer then produced the second respondent before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Jammalamadugu who remanded him to the judicial custody in the sub-jail at Jammalamadugu for about a week.

In short, it was the case of the second respondent that taking advantage of the murder of Pedda Subba Reddy, the revision petitioners implicated him falsely, although he was innocent and had nothing to do with the crime. The petitioners 1, 3 and 4 who were examined at the inquest on 17-2-64 also made statements against the second respondent alleging that he shot the deceased Subba Reddy with a gun. The Medical Officer who conducted the post mortem examination did not find any gun shot injury on the body of the deceased Subba Reddy, and in the opinion of the Medical Officer, the deceased Subba Reddy died due to an explosion of a country bomb and not due to any gun shot injury. The C. I. D. Police made an elaborate investigation and being satisfied that the second respondent was not concerned with the murder of the deceased Subba Reddy in any manner filed an application on 27-2-64 in the Court of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate to release him, as there was nothing to show his complicity in the crime. The second respondent was therefore released and later the Inspector of Police (C. I. D.) filed a charge-sheet against the first revision petitioner and others for causing injuries to the second respondent.

The second respondent, therefore, filed a private complaint in the Court of the judicial Second Class Magistrate alleging that he has been falsely implicated by the petitioners in a murder case by making false statements and therefore the petitioners are liable to be punished under Sections 193, 194, 195 and 211 I. P. C. The Magistrate took the private complaint of the second respondent on file under Section 200 Cr. P. C. and recorded his sworn statement. He also recorded the statement of one of the witnesses cited in the complaint and registered the case as P. R. C. 14/64. The Magistrate also caused an enquiry under S. 202 Cr. P. C. and called for a report from the Inspector of Police, C. I. D. Crime Branch. The Police report disclosed that the statements made by the petitioners in the course of investigation of the crime relating to the murder of Subba Reddy did not contain the whole truth, but however the Police did not consider that any action against them could be taken under Sections 193 to 195 and 211 I. P. C.