UNIYAL, J. : One Sheo Shanker Singh, along with nine others, was charged with offences under Ss. 147 and 148, and Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149, I.P.C. in S. T. No. 23 of 1961 in the court of the Sessions, Judge, Mirzapur in respect of an occurrence dated 20-11-1900 resulting in the death of Tarak Nath Pande and injuries to two-others. The accused pleaded a right of private defence of property and adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their case. One of the documents filed in evidence by them was a complaint Ex. Kha-73 alleged to have been instituted by Sheo Shanker on 18-11-1960 in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Chunar, District Mirzapur to the effect that P.W. Kishore, accompanied by Tarak Nath Pandey and several other men, had unlawfully and forcibly cut and removed paddy crop from plot No. 733 of village Semara Barch belonging to the accused.

2. The learned Sessions Judge found that the paddy crop standing on plot No. 733 aforesaid had been raised by the accused and that the said plot had been in their possession since long. He held that they were entitled to protect their possession and, therefore, acquitted them. At the same time he was of the opinion that the complaint Ex. Kha-73 was not instituted on 18-11-1960 but that it was instituted on a later date and falsely shown as having been instituted on that date as a result of a conspiracy between the Criminal Ahalmad, the Reader and pairokar of Sheo Shankar accused."

and that the statement of D.W. 5 Sri Gulab Singh Vakil that he had instituted the said complaint on 18-11-1960 was false.

3. The State filed an appeal in this Court against the aforesaid order of acquittal."While endorsing the finding of the trial Judge on the question of possession, this Court came to the conclusion that two of the accused had inflicted injuries on the victims after a reasonable apprehension of danger to property had ceased. As regards the complaint Ext. Kha-73, the Court was of the opinion that the same was not filed on 18-11-1960 and the defence evidence on this part of the case was false, and that the conduct of D.W. 3 Sri Gulab Singh Vakil and the officials of the court of the judicial Magistrate, Chunar was reprehensible. In disposing of the appeal the court made an order directing issue of notice to the opposite parties, who had been examined as witnesses at the trial, to show cause why a complaint should not be filed against them under Sec. 193 I.P.C. for intentionally giving false evidence in S. T. No. 23 of 1961, State v. Sheo Shankar Singh and others.

4. Pursuant to the notice aforesaid the opposite parties showed cause and objected to the legality of the order for their prosecution. The learned counsel for the opposite parties made two submissions; first, that the order of the Court for the prosecution of the opposite parties was one made under Sec. 479-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and that where the Court exercises jurisdiction to proceed under that Section it has to form an opinion that the witnesses had intentionally given false evidence or intentionally fabricated false evidence, and further that it was expedient in the interests of justice to make a complaint for their prosecution under Sec. 193 I.P.C. It was said that in the absence of a clear and explicit finding by the Court in terms of Sec. 479-A(1), it had no jurisdiction to take action for the prosecution of the opposite parties under Sec. 193 I.P.C. Secondly, that if the case fell within the provisions of Sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 479-A the Court had no power to take action under the provisions of Sec. 476 of the Code. In other words, it was contended that the two Sections, namely, Sec. 476 and Sec. 479-A were mutually exclusive and that if one was applicable to the facts of a particular case the other was clearly excluded.

5. In the course of its judgment this Court was of the opinion that it was a fit case in which a complaint should be fi