IMPORTANT POINT
In order to make a person liable for perjury, he should have made a statement on oath regarding facts on which his statement was based and then deny those facts on oath on a subsequent occasion.

ORDER

M.M. Mirdhe, J. -This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr. P.C. against the order dated 24.11.1990 passed by the J.M.F.C. Shahapur, in C.C. No. 1215 of 1985.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader fully and perused the records of the case.

3. The Shahapur police filed charge sheet against five persons alleging that they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 143 and 506 I.P.C. and also under Section 2 of the Karnataka Prevention of Incitement of Refuse or to Defer Payment of Tax Act, 1981. The learned Magistrate framed charges for the said offences against the accused in that case and all the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Thereafter the prosecution led its evidence and after hearing both sides the' learned Magistrate acquitted the accused in that case under Section 248 (1) Cr. P.C. for the of fences alleged against them. While acquitting the accused in the said case, he also ordered the case to be registered against P.W. 1 Md. Ismail Khan, son of Md. Yaseen Khan, Village Accountant, Sagar, for the offence punishable under Section 193 I.P.C. and he ordered for issue of show cause notice to the said P.W. 1 as to why he should not be punished for giving false evidence in the judicial proceedings.

4. The petitioner who is P.W. 1 in that case has filed this, Petition. He appeared before the J.M.F.C. Shahapur, in response to the show cause notice and filed his reply. The learned J.M.F.C. was not satisfied with the reply given to the show cause notice and he came to the conclusion that the petitioner should be tried for having committed the offence punishable under Section 193 I.P.C. during the course of the trial in C.C. No. 307 of 1984 and he posted the case for recording the plea of the petitioner on 30.11.1990.

5. There is no complaint filed for the offence under Section 193 I.P.C. by the Court. In Chandrapal Singh and others v. Maharaj Singh and another1, it has been held by the Supreme Court as follows:

"The Rent Control Officer shall be deemed to be a civil court within the meaning of Sections 345 and 346 of Cr. P.C. 1973 and in view of sub-section (2) of Sec. 24 of the V.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, shall be a civil court for the purpose of Section 193 I.P.C. Section 195 (3), Cr. P.C. provides that the expression 'Court' in Section 195 (1) (b) (i) will include a Tribunal constituted by or under a Central Provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of the Section. Section 195 (1) (b) (i) provides a pre-condition for taking cognizance of an offence under Section 193, I.P.C., viz., a complaint in writing of the Court. In view of the specific provision made in sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the Rent Act that for the purposes of Sections 345 and 346 Cr. P.C. Rent Control Officer, assuming it to be a Tribunal as held by the High Court and not a Court, would be deemed to be a civil court and, therefore, for purposes of Sections 193 and 228, I.P .C. a fortiori any proceeding before it would be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Section 193, I.P .C. If, there fore, according to the complainant false evidence was given in a judicial proceeding before a civil court and the persons giving such false evidence have committed an offence under Section 193 I.P.C. in or in relation to a proceeding before a Court, no Court can take cognizance of such offence except on a complaint in writing of that Court. The grievance in the instant case, is that a false affidavit was filed by the accused which was receivable as evidence in the allotment proceedings before the Rent Control Officer which as a Tribunal would be comprehended in the expression "Court". If false evidence in the form of affidavit filed by the accused was given before Rent Control Officer, a Civil Court for the purpose of Section 193, I.P.C. that being a judic