The main legal point established in the judgment is that only a prima facie case need be made out to proceed under Section 340 of Cr.P.C., and that no revision under Section 115 of CPC lies against the orders passed by the trial Court or the appellate Court under Section 340 of Cr.P.C.

The petitioner in O.P. (Misc.) 7/85 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Pala is the revision petitioner.

2. The revision petitioner was the 4th plaintiff in O.S. 68/83 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Pala seeking a decree to set aside certain documents and for mandatory injunction directing defendants 7 and 8 to restore the plaint schedule item No. 1 road to its original condition. The plaintiffs alleged that defendants 4 and 6 who are the parents of the 5th defendant, who is the owner of item No. 2 of the plaint schedule properties influenced defendants 2 and 3, the Panchayat President and the Executive Officer respectively to deviate Item No. 1 public road through item No. 2 property and to appropriate item No. 1 property in the place of item No. 2 property and for that purpose defendants 2 and 3 manipulated certain documents such as minutes book of the Panchayat Committee etc. After trial the Munsiff's Court dismissed the suit.

3. The revision petitioner herein filed O.P. (Misc.) 7/85 before the Munsiff's Court, Pala under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the respondent herein who is the 3rd defendant in O.S. 68/83 alleging that he had manipulated the official records of the Panchayat and had given false evidence before Court and as such he has committed the offence punishable under Sections 191 and 192 of the IPC.

4. After trial the Munsiff's Court dismissed the suit. The Munsiff's Court also dismissed the O.P. (Misc.) 7/85 holding that there is no sufficient material to institute proceedings against the respondent herein under Section 340 of the Crl.P.C.

5. The plaintiffs filed A.S. 202/85 before the District Court, Kottayam challenging the decree and judgment in the suit and the revision petitioner filed C.M.A. No. 56/87 before the District Court challenging the order passed by the Munsiff's Court in O.P. (Misc.) 7/85. The District Court by the common judgment dated 5-9-1992 in A.S. No. 202/85 and C.M.A. No. 56/87, allowed A.S. 202/85 setting aside the decree and judgment of the Munsiff's Court in the suit and decreed the suit as prayed for and dismissed C.M.A. 56/87 confirming the order passed by the Munsiff's Court in the O.P. This revision petition is filed challenging the judgment in C.M.A. 56/87 of the District Court.

6. The revision-petitioner has vehemently contended that in order to proceed under the provisions of Section 340 of Cr.P.C. only a prima facie case need be made out and in spite of the fact that a more than prima facie case is made out by the revision petitioner in this case, the trial Court dismissed the O.P. on the ground that no convincing evidence is adduced by the revision-petitioner and the lower appellate Court confirmed that order without going into the merits of the case, and therefore, the order passed by the Munsiff's Court and confirmed by the appellate Court is absolutely illegal and unsustainable.

7. It is settled law that in order to proceed against a person under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. what is required is prima facie evidence to indicate that the offences alleged are likely to have been committed by him and the Court need not probe into the question whether sufficient materials are available to convict the opposite party for the alleged offence.

8. In the decision in Kapoor v. Kairon, AIR 1956 All 66 : (1966 Cri LJ 115) a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has observed as follows :

"It has next to be seen if a prima facie case has been made out upon the evidence and materials on record for enquiring further into the question whether the offences alleged against the opposite party appear to have been committed by him, so as to call for the lodging of a complaint. At the moment, this Court has not to express any opinion on the guilt or innocence of the opposite party. The use of the words "appear to have been committed" in Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is significant and it merely shows that at the present stage there should be