( 1 ) ONE Majid was shot at on the night between the 1st and the 2nd of March, 1959 at his house in village Maramau Khurd, police station Pisa-wan, district Sitapur. The report was lodged by majid himself and he named one Tasadduq as his assailant. Subsequently Majid died. Sri Imtiaz ali, station officer Pisawan, investigated this case. In the course of investigation it is alleged that he took a search of the house of Tasadduq on the 2nd of March, 1959 in the presence of tasadduq and his father Budha Khan and some search witnesses including Badullah, Imami khan and Niaz Ahmed and recovered unlicensed fire-arms from the possession of both. After completing the investigation he prosecuted both Tasadduq and Budha Khan. Budha Khan was prosecuted under Section 19 (f) of the Arms Act, while two cases were launched against tasadduq, one under Section 302. P. Code and the other under Section 19 (f) of the Arms Act. The case of Budha Khan was heard by Shrimati Usha Kansal, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, misrikh, Sitapur, and it was decided by her on the 12th of August, 1959. Budha Khan was acquitted as the trial court found that the entire evidence of: recovery was suspicious and the allegations made by the prosecution that the fire-arms were recovered from the possession of budha Khan from a safe place was unbelievable. The Magistrate inspected the house of Budha Khan before pronouncing her decision and found that the condition of the house as deposed to by the prosecution witnesses was completely at variance with what she observed. The witnesses had stated that the Kothris had a pucca roof while she found that there was only a thatch over the Kothris. She also found that mast of those kothris had no doors and were insecure, while the prosecution witnesses had deposed that they had doors and they could be chained from inside, as well as outside.

( 2 ) THE cases against Tasadduq were committed to the Court of Session. The prosecution witnesses who were examined in the Arms Act case against Tasadduq gave a similar statement to the one which they had given in Budha Khans case. Only two witnesses were examined at that stage and they were Imtiaz Ali, applicant in Criminal Revision No. 64 of 1960, and Niaz Ahmed, applicant in Criminal Revision No. 62 of 1960. It seems that such statements were not given by them in the committal proceedings in connection with the murder case against Tasadduq.

( 3 ) BOTH the Sessions cases against Tasadduq came up far hearing before the Sessions Judge, sitapur. The Sessions Judge acquitted Tasadduq in both these cases and at the time of pronouncing his judgment in the murder case he made the following observations :

"in this case the investigating officer Sri Imtiaz Ali (P. W. 26) and the four witnesses of the search of the house of Tasadduq and Budha have deliberately made false statements as has been shown above. The manufacturing of such evidence against the accused by the investigating officers is on the increase and though it has been pointed out in quite a large number of cases that this should not be done, the investigating officers are paying no heed to it. It is, therefore, expedient for eradica-tion of evils of perjury and fabrication of false evidence and in the interest of justice that the investigating officer and the witnesses namely Niaz Ahmed, Sadullah and imami should be prosecuted for making false statements at different stages in these judicial proceedings".

( 4 ) THE trial court then mentioned the specific conflicting statements made by these four witnesses and then under Section 479-A Cr. P. Code it filed complaints against all these four witnesses under Sections 193, 194 and 195. P. Code. When filing these complaints the trial court mentioned these irreconcilable statements and observed that in any case either their statements before him were false or their statements in the courts of the two Magistrates were false.

( 5 ) UNDER the new Section 479-A Cr. P. Code, there is no r