Section 479A, CrPC, governs the prosecution of persons for giving false evidence and provides a specific procedure for such prosecution. Once Section 479A, CrPC, is applicable, the provisions of Sections 476 to 479, CrPC, cannot be used for the same purpose.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under Section 476-B, Cr. P. C. , from an order of the District judge of Indore, directing a complaint to be filed against the appellant in respect of an offence under Section 193, I. P. C.

( 2 ) THE material facts are that in a suit filed by the respondent against the appellant and his brother Dhannalal in the Court of the District Judge of Indore, for the recovery of Rs. 63227-8-0 as the balance due on account of certain transactions, the plaintiff tendered in evidence a statement of accounts said to have been made up by the appellant himself in his own hand. The appellant denied that the statement was written out by him. In his evidence the plaintiff Ramkishan stated that the appellant had himself written out the statement of accounts in question and had given it to him. The plaintiff also examined a handwriting expert to show that the statement was in the handwriting of the appellant. On a consideration of the statement of the plaintiff and the deposition of the handwriting expert and the probabilities of the case, the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the statement of account was in the hand-writing of the appellant Mannalal. The plaintiffs claim was decreed by the learned District Judge drt 29-3-1956. The decree was modified by this Court on -14-8-1957. The modification was only with regard to the interest amount. After the claim was decreed by the original Court, the plaintiff presented an application under Section 476, Criminal P. C. , for a complaint being filed against Mannalal in respect of an offence under Section 193, I. P. C. , alleging that by denying that the statement of accounts in question was not, in his handwriting the appellant deliberately gave false evidence. The appellant Mannalal also made a similar application against the plaintiff ramkishan, The learned District Judge of Indore, accepting Ramkishan's petition, directed a complaint to be filed against Mannalal. The prayer of Mannalal for the prosecution of Ramkishan was, however, rejected.

( 3 ) MR. Vijaywargi, learned counsel for the appellant argued that in the suit filed, by ramkishan, the judgment was pronounced by the learned District Judge on 29-31956; that on this date the amendments made in the Criminal Procedure Code by act No. 26 of 1955 had already come into force and after the said amendments in the Code, a prosecution against a person who had given false evidence or has fabricated false evidence could he started only under the new Section 479a and not under Section 476; that if the learned District Judge thought that the appellant had given false evidence before him in regard to the statement of accounts he should have recorded a finding at the time of the delivery of judgment stating his reasons that in his opinion Mannalal had intentionally given false evidence and that for the eradication of the evils of perjury and fabrication of false evidence and in the interests of justice it was expedient that he should be prosecuted for an offence under Section 193, I. P. C. ; that no such finding was given by the learned district Judge at the time of the delivery of judgment; and that under Sub-section (6) of Section 479a, Criminal P. C. , no proceedings could be taken against the appellant under Sections 476 to 479 for giving false evidence when proceedings could have been taken against him under Section 479a.

( 4 ) IN my opinion, the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant must be given effect to. There can be no doubt that by virtue of Section 116 of Act no. 26 of 1955, the new Section 479a applies to all proceedings instituted after the commencement of the aforesaid amending Act and also to all proceedings pending in any Criminal Court on the date of such commencement. In this case, the judgment of the learned District Judge was pronounced on 29-31956 and thereafter the respondent moved the learned District Judge for prosecuting the appellant for an offence under S