Modi, J.—This is a revision by the petitioner Amolak and raises an interesting question relating to the interpretation of the newly enacted sec. 479-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The facts, out of which this revision arises, may be very shortly stated.

3. In Criminal case No. 21 of 1957—Hari Singh and four others were tried for offences under secs. 302 and 302/149 I. P. C. and certain other sections for causing the death of one Hari Ram and grievous injuries to his son Mangla. By his judgment dated the 26th of August, 1958, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, acquitted the accused, having come to the finding that whatever injuries were caused to the deceased and his son, were so caused by the two accused Hari Singh and Madho in the exercise of their right of private defence of person. The petitioner Amolak was one of the three-eye-witness in that case. On the 5th of December, 1958, an application was moved on behalf of the State that the said Amolak had intentionally given false evidence and had thereby committed the offence of perjury and therefore the court be pleased to file a complaint against him under sec. 195 Cr.P.C. in the court of the magistrate concerned. This application was made under sec. 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,? A notice was given to the petitioner to show cause why a complaint be not made against him where upon an objection was raised on his behalf that the aforesaid application was incompetent by virtue of the provisions of sec. 479-A and, therefore, it should be dismissed. The argument was that the learned Judge must have recorded a finding to the effect that the petitioner had given false evidence at the time of the delivery of the judgment as required by sec. 479-A, and, that inasmuch as he had failed to do so, no complaint could thereafter be filed relying on sec. 476, as case of the petitioner was fully covered by the provisions of sec. 479-A of the Code. The learned Judge rejected this argument by merely saying that in his opinion the complaint could be made even later, and there was no statutory bar to do so.

4. The narrow question which emerges for determination in these circumstances is whether the view of the learned Additional Sessions Judge set out above, is correct. It clearly seems to me that the learned Judge did not carefully apply his mind to the provisions of sec. 479-A The material portion of this sec. reads as follows :—

"479-A. Procedure in certain cases of false evidence. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in secs. 476, to 479 inclusive, when any Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court is of opinion that any person appearing before it as a witness has intentionally given false evidence in any stage of the judicial proceeding or has intentionally fabricated false evidence for the purpose or being used in any stage of. the judicial proceeding, and that for the eradication of the evils of perjury and fabrication of false evidence and in the interests of justice, it is expedient that such witness, should be prosecuted for the offence which appears to have been committed by him, the Court shall at the time of the delivery of the judgment or final order disposing of such proceeding, record a finding to that effect stating its reasons therefor and may, if it so thinks fit, after giving the witness an opportunity of being heard, make a complaint thereof in writing signed by the presiding officer of the Court setting forth the evidence which, in the opinion of the Court, is false or fabricated and forward the same to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction and may, if the accused is present before the Court, take sufficient security for his appearance before such Magistrate and may bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate :

Provided that where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, the complaint may be signed by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint.

(2) ... ...

(3) No appeal shall lie from any finding recor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document