GAJENDRAGADKAR C. J. -[Wanchoo and Rajagopala Ayyangar JJ. concurring; Sarkar and Das Gupta JJ., dissenting). The short question of law. which arises for our decision in the present appeal is whether the proceeding, before an Income -Tax Officer under section 37 of the Indian Income -tax Act, 1922 (No. XI of 1922) (hereinafter called the Act) can be said to be a proceeding in any Court within the meaning of section 195 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This question arises in this way. The appellant Lalji Haridas and respondent No.2 Mulji Manilal Kamdar are businessmen and they carry on their business in Jamnagar and Bombay respectively. They have known, each other for several years past in the course of their ordinary business activities. In the income -tax assessment proceedings of the appellant for the assessment years 1949 -50 and 1950 -51, respondent No.2 gave evidence on oath before the Income -tax officer, Ward A, Jamnagar, on December 4, 1958. In• his. evidence he denied that he had a son named Nihal Chand and that he had . done any business in the name, of M/s Nihal Chand and Com. at Jamnagar. According to the appellant, the said statements were fa