JUDGMENT Holmwood, J. - This was a rule calling upon the Deputy Commissioner of Ranchi to show cause why the order under sec. 476, Cr. P.C., directing the prosecution of the Petitioner under sec. 193, I.P.C., should not be set aside on the ground that the circumstances are such that no prosecution should have been ordered under that section. It appears that the accused one Loke Nath Sahi was examined as a witness in the case of Emperor v. Budhun Oraon who was convicted by the Honorary Magistrate of theft under sec. 379, I. P.C., by cutting and carrying away the crops of 1/2 powas of land said to be in possession of the complainant Aklu Kumhar. On appeal the learned Joint Magistrate found good reason to believe that the charge of theft was a civil claim engineered by the accused Loke Nath who is the landlord with a view to oust the aboriginal tenants Defendants and set up his own creatures in their place. 2. He therefore very properly acquitted the accused persons but proceeded further to call upon the Petitioner to show cause why he should not be prosecuted under sec. 193, I.P.C., in respect of the following statement recorded in his deposition before the Honorary Magistrate, viz. "He (i.e., Aklu Kumhar) has jote of the land measuring 21/2 powas near the tank called Parani Pokur on our behalf, one kanwa since 5 or 6 years and 2 powas since 13 or 14 years." 3. The Joint Magistrate explains the ground on which he holds these statements to be false in the order-sheet dated 6th April 1906. He says "in the cause shown it is clear that Loke Nath does not touch the statement about the 13 or 14 years which is proved to be false by his own jummabandis. Besides, it is quite clear that Aklu Kumhar cannot hold two powas at all even now if one is in somebody else's name." 4. Now the jummabandi and road-cess papers on which the learned Joint Magistrate relies were not before the Honorary Magistrate and the accused in giving his evidence was not asked to explain them or given any opportunity of rebutting them. Besides, it is clear that those papers do not bear out the Joint Magistrate's contention. 5. Now the jummabandi and road-cess papers on which the learned Joint Magistrate relies were not before the Honorary Magistrate and the accused in giving his evidence was not asked to explain them or given any opportunity of rebutting them. Besides, it is clear that those papers do not bear out the Joint Magistrate's contention. 5. The jummabandi was filed 131/2 years ago and the omission of complainant's name in it could hardly be a ground for saying that the rather vague statement that Aklu held 2 powas for 13 or 14 years was false. 6. Nor could the road-cess papers of 1898 which state that complainant held 2 as. Chotera and 2 as. Uttakar which the Joint Magistrate calculates is one powa in all be sufficient evidence in a case of perjury. It is clear that if the Joint Magistrate's findings in appeal are correct he should have held a full judicial enquiry under sec. 476, Cr. P.C., as to whether Loke Nath Sahi should not be prosecuted under sec. 211 read with sec. 109, I.P.C., for abetting the institution of a false complaint. 7. It is an unusual and not in our opinion a proper procedure for an Appellate Court which did not hear the evidence to order a prosecution for perjury in the lower Court on materials which were not before that Court and which the witness had no opportunity of explaining while in the box. For these reasons we make the rule absolute and direct that the proceedings taken against Loke Nath Sahi under sec. 193, I.P.C., be set aside.