JUDGMENT : Knox, J. Two persons, Binda and Dwarka, made certain statements before the Joint Magistrate of Azamgarh. The Joint Magistrate came to the conclusion that those statements or part of them were false. He accordingly ordered the prosecution under section 193 of the Penal Code, 1860 of Binda, on the ground that he, on the 26th June, 1903, at Bhogaicha had stated on oath before him as follows:— “The Sub-Inspector did not take my statement, & c, & c,” which statement he knew to be false; of Dwarka in that on the 26th June, 1903, at Bhogaicha, he stated on oath before him “that the Sub-Inspector did not take his statement, & c, & c.” which statement he knew to be false. He forwarded this order of his to the District Magistrate with the request that he would appoint some court for the trial of the above case.’ This order went before the learned Sessions Judge of Azamgarh, who came to the conclusion that this order, which he calls a sanction, “does not clearly come within the purview of section 195 of the Penal Code” (sic) Code of Criminal Procedure, as no application for sanction was made to the Magistrate by any one. He held that the sanction was illegal and had no hesitation in revoking it. This was on the 22nd August, 1903. On the 23rd February, 1904, the District Magistrate of Azamgarh took up the case again. He held that he had power either to sanction the prosecution of Binda and Dwarka or to complain against them for the offence. 2. After calling upon them to show cause he passed this order, “I hereby sanction their prosecution for an offence under section, 93A,” whatever that may mean. I take it to mean that he sanctions their prosecution for intentionally giving false evidence in a stage of a judicial proceeding, and if this is correct, there can be no doubt, and it is admitted before me by the learned Assistant Government Advocate, that the false evidence with which Binda and Dwarka are charged, is the false evidence, for the giving of which Mr. Peters, the Joint Magistrate, on the 3rd August, 1903, made an order, which order was revoked by the Sessions Judge of Azamgarh. This action by the learned District Magistrate is, in my opinion, quite irregular. Peters, the Joint Magistrate, on the 3rd August, 1903, made an order, which order was revoked by the Sessions Judge of Azamgarh. This action by the learned District Magistrate is, in my opinion, quite irregular. If he considered the order of the learned Sessions Judge passed on the 22nd August, 1903, an illegal order, he should have moved this Court to have it set aside. I am not concerned at the present moment with the question whether that order of the learned Sessions Judge was a proper order. On the part of the Crown I was strongly urged to consider whether the whole of these proceedings, which took place, commencing with those of the 3rd August, 1903, should not be swept aside, and the case sent back to the Joint Magistrate to be dealt with according to law. The way in which the learned Magistrate has dealt with the case seems to me so irregular that I have no option but to set his order aside. I notice that In the course of his order he alludes to certain explanations which he has received from the Sessions Judge. I do not know how those explanations came to be furnished. I know of nothing in the Code of Criminal Procedure which either authorises a District Magistrate to call upon a Sessions Judge for explanations or which justifies a Sessions Judge in furnishing them. The order of the District Magistrate and the proceedings instituted by him on the 23rd February, 1904, are set aside.