This revision is filed against an order directing a complaint to be filed against the petitioners for an offence under section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. The facts which led up to this complaint are these: On 3rd November, 1950, at about mid-night one Bayamma who is now sought to be prosecuted as the first accused was stabbed on her buttocks. Her son-in-law who is now sought to be prosecuted as the second accused was sleeping nearby and he rushed to the place on hearing her cries. The other two accused, the servants of Bayamma were said to have been sleeping near her. It is stated that she saw 5 persons at the time of the occurrence and mentioned the names of 4 persons and the 5th one could not be identified by her. P.W.2, the son-in-law, gave information to the Police at about 2 a.m., implicating the 4 names which she mentioned and also mentioning that there was another person concerned in the offence. The woman was taken to the Pulivendla hospital and on account of her serious condition, the Sub-Magistrate came and took a dying declaration from her. In this dying declaration she reiterated the names of the 4 persons whom she mentioned to P.W.2 and whose names were given to the Police at 2 a.m. by P.W.2 and that another person whom she could not identify was also present. Statements under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code were also recorded from the two servants Gangadu and David who, as already stated, were said to have been sleeping near her. They supported her story that the 4 persons mentioned by her in her dying declaration and mentioned by P.W.2 in the information to the Police along with another were concerned in the attack. After investigation a charge sheet was filed against the 4 persons mentioned in the first information and in the dying declaration. At the time when the enquiry started, Bayamma was examined as P.W.1, her son-in-law as P.W. 2 and the two servants as P.Ws.3 and 4. All of them went back on their earlier statements and stated that they could not identify the assailants. The accused in the case were, therefore, discharged. The committing Magistrate thereupon filed a complaint against the petitioners therein, for an offence under section 195 read with section 199 of the Indian Penal Code against Bayamma, under section 211, para 2 of the Indian Penal Code, against P.W.2, her son-in-law, and under section 195 of the Indian Penal Code, against the servants P.Ws.3 and 4.

Against the order of the committing Court, an appeal was preferred to the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate, after going into the whole matter fully, finds as follows in paragraph 33 of his order:

“I am satisfied therefore that these witnesses stated the truth in the early stages of this case and that they intentionally gave false evidence in the preliminary enquiry.”

If the District Magistrate has stopped there, I would not have interfered with his order. But he proceeds further and states as follows:

“At any rate there is reasonable doubt as to which of these two contradictory statements is false. In any event, an offence punishable under section 193 of the Indian Penal Code appears to have been committed by each of these appellants.”

He then directed a complaint to be filed against all of them under section 193 of the Indian Penal Code.

In revision it is contended by Mr. Basi Reddi appearing for the petitioners relying on Emperor v. Ningappa Ramappa1, that in such circumstances as here where the Magistrate is not quite sure as to which of the statements is false, no prosecution should be launched. At any rate without finding specifically that the statement made before the Court is false, prosecution should not be launched against these petitioners. In the judgment above referred to Beaumont, C.J., follows a decision of a Special Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Emperor v. Tripura Shankar Sarkar2 wherein the Chief Justice Sir Lawrence Jenkins observed as follows:

“This, then, is how matters stand. The Court is co