Judgment

DUA, J.:- In this appeal by special leave, the appellant challenges the order of a learned single Judge of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated May 22 1969 allowing the revision of Izhar Hussain end after setting aside the order of the Sessions Judge. Barabanki dated March 15, 1967 as also that of the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial). Barabanki dated January 11, 1967. directing the Deputy Registrar of the High Court to file a complaint under Section 211. I.P.C. against the appellant for falsely charging Izhar Hussain with offences under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 149 and under Section 147. I.P.C. in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial). Barabanki.

2. It appears that pursuant to the first information report (Ext. Ka-9) lodged by Kartar Singh s/o. Shri Lachman Singh at police station Kotwali Sub-District Nawabganj District Barabanki on February 7, 1966. Izhar Hussain respondent and some others were tried in the court of the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) Barabanki for offences under Sections 147, 323/149 and 326/149, I.P.C. Several witnesses were examined in support of the prosecution case. Santokh Singh appellant appeared as P.W. 4. In his examination in chief. so far as relevant for our purpose he had deposed on September 3, 1966 as follows:-

"I had gone to the jail for identifying the accused persons. By putting his hand on Mohd. Zahir.Usman. Shahanshah, Puttan and Izhar Husain the witness stated. I had seen them in the marpit and thereafter in the identification parade in the jail."

In cross-examination, he had stated, inter alia :-

"I did not see among the assailants the accused Izhar Hussain present in Court. I did not happen to see this boy in that night. The men of the Octroi Post said to me that Anwar s son Izhar was also present among the assailants. I identified this boy in the jail at the instance of the people of the Octroi Post "

3. The Additional District Magistrate trying the case acquitted all the accused of the offences charged on November 30, l966 In the course of his judgment the learned Magistrate observed inter alia: -

"One of the accused Izhar Hussain is a boy aged about 13 years. It has been stated by Kartar Singh and Santokh Singh that actually they had not seen him at the place of occurrence. Still Santokh Singh identified him before Shri A. P. Singh, Magistrate. He explains that this he did because the Octroi personnel told him so. Obviously on their mere telling it could not have been possible to identify this boy.

Earlier the learned Magistrate had observed that Kartar Singh and Santokh Singh were obviously the victims of the assault. It is noteworthy that the Additional District Magistrate while acquitting the accused persons did not hold that Santokh Singh had falsely charged Izhar Hussin or any other accused persons nor did the learned Magistrate consider it to be expedient in the interest of justice to prosecute Santokh Singh for an offence under Section 211, I.P.C.

4. In January. 1967. Izhar Hussain presented an application in the court of the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) Barabanki under Sections 476/479-A. Cr. P. C. (in the application as printed in the paper book apparently these sections have wrongly been described to be of I. P. C.) praying that Kartar Singh. Santokh Singh and. R. D. Chowdhry. S. I, police station Kotwali, be prosecuted for the offence under Sections 211/193. I.P.C. because Shri R. D. Chowdhry in collusion with Shri Kartar Singh had submitted a wrong charge sheet whereas Kartar Singh had lodged a false report at the instance of one Harnail Singh and also that these three persons had intentionally given false evidence during the petitioner s trial and had also intentionally fabricated false evidence for the purpose of being used as evidence in the case.

5. The Additional District Magistrate observed that after considering the evidence in the main case he had disbelieved the witnesses for the pr