( 1 ) JABIR Singh has filed this revision application against the order of the learned Sessions Judge of Bulandshahr directing the filing of a complaint against the applicant for his prosecution for perjury.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this revision application are that one Malkhan Singh was prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 382,. P. C. , and the applicant Jabir Singh was examined in that case as a prosecution witness. In cross-examination he was asked to state whether or not he had been convicted under the Martial Law and sentenced to imprisonment for 18 months having spent that period in Agra Jail. The applicant denied that he was ever convicted and confined in Agra jail. The question was not put apparently with a view to check the credibility of the witness. Malkhan Singh was acquitted in that case. Thereafter he moved under Section 476, cr. P. C. , the Magistrate who tried him requesting that Court to make a preliminary inquiry and file a complaint for the prosecution of the applicant for perjury. It appears that evidence was given before the learned Magistrate to prove that the applicant was convicted and was confined as a prisoner in Agra Central Jail. The learned Magistrate, however, did not file a complaint but dismissed the application under Section 476, Cr. P. C. on the ground that in view of the provisions of Section 479a (6) Cr. P. C. , the provisions of Section 476, Cr. P. C. , could not be invoked. Malkhan Singh filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, bulandshahr, under Section 476b, Cr. P. C. The appeal was allowed by the learned Sessions judge who directed that a complaint be made against the applicant for the offence of perjury. Thereupon the present revision application was filed in this Court.

( 3 ) TWO points were urged before the learned Sessions Judge and the same have been urged before me. The first point is that in view of Section 479a (6), no Court has jurisdiction to file a complaint in respect of an offence of perjury otherwise than at the time of disposing of the case in which the offence of perjucy has been committed, and it was submitted that the provisions of section 476, Cr. P. C. would not be applicable to a case of perjury at all. The second point argued was that considering the facts of the case it is not expedient in the interests of justice to prosecute the applicant for an offence of perjury.

( 4 ) I shall take the first point first. The provisions of Section 479a have been inserted in the Code of Criminal Procedure by Section 89 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act 1955 (No XXVI of 1955 ). Section 479a runs as follows:

" (1) Nothwithstanding anything contained in Sections 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 of 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 Co