JUDGMENT

Scott-Smith, J. - This has been filed as an appeal but has been treated as an application for revision as no appeal lies from the order complaired of. The order in question which was passed by Mr. Malan, Sessions Judge of Jhelum, on the 21st of June last directed under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, the prosecution of one Khan Muhammad for an offence under Section 193, Indian Penal Code. The facts which gave rise to the order of the learned Sessions Judge are fully stated therein and interference is sought on the ground that the alleged false evidence was given before Mr. Malan's predecessor and that, therefore, he had no jurisdiction to direct the prosecution under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code.

2. In support of this contention counsel for the applicant refers to Crown v. Mt. Dauli [1909] 6 P.R. 1909 Cr., in which it was held that it is only the individual Magistrate before whom the offence was committed in Court who can take action under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Judge who decided that case followed Begu Singh v. Emperor [1907] 34 Cal 551, and Kartik Ram v. Emperor [1908] 35 Cal. 114 but those authorities were subsequently rendered of no effect by reason of the full Bench judgment of seven Judges of the High Court of Calcutta reported in Bahadur v. Eradalullah Mallick [1910] 37 Cal. 612, wherein it was held that the word "Court" in Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, includes the successor of a Judge before whom the alleged offence was committed or to whose notice the commission of it was brought in the course of a judicial proceeding. The same view was taken in In the matter of the petition of Nawal Singh [1912] 34 All 393 In re Lakshmi Das Lalji [1907] 32 Bom. 184, and Banga Ayyar v. Emperor [1905] 29 Mad. 331. Under these circumstances I consider that I am not bound to follow the decision in Crown v. Mt. Dauli (1) with which I disagree. I fully agree with the views expressed by the Calcutta High Court in Bahadur v. Eradatullah Mallick [1912] 34 All 393.

3. The Court to whose notice the commission of the alleged offence was brought in the course of a judicial proceeding was that of Lala Topan Ram, Additional Sessions Judge of Jhelum, and Mr. Malan who passed the order complained of was his successor.

4. The next objection urged by counsel is that the order was passed three months after the conclusion of the trial by the Additional Sessions Judge and thai this should not have been done having regard to the decision of the Madras High Court in Aiya Kannu Pillai v. Emperor [1908] 32 Mad. 49 wherein it was stated that the power conferred by Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, can be exercised by the Court only in the course of a judicial proceeding or at its conclusion or so shortly thereafter as to make it really the continuation of the same proceeding in the course of which the offence was committed. In the present case there was no delay. Lala Topan Ram called upon Khan Muhammad to show cause against his prosecution on the 27th March 1922, i.e., one day before he decided the case in which Khan Muhammad gave his evidence. Proceedings were subsequently stayed pending the decision of the appeal of the accused persons by the High Court and within a few days after the decision of the appeal Mr. Malan passed the order complained of. I, therefore, see no force in either of counsel's contentions and I reject the application.