JUDGMENT : RICHARDS, J.:— In this case, which is an application to revise the order made by the District Magistrate under section 476, in sanctioning the prosecution of applicant for an alleged offence under section 193 of the Penal Code, 1860, the facts are a little peculiar. It appears a prosecution was instituted against Bindesri Singh under section 379. He made an application to the District Magistrate asking that the case might be transferred from the Court of the Tahsildar to his own Court, or some other Court. He grounded his application upon a statement made on oath in which he made allegations of a more or less serious nature against the Tahsildar, but the object was to get a transfer of his case on the grounds that the relations between him and the Tahsildar were such that he would not get a fair trial in the proceedings brought against him. It appears to be not an unusual practice for the Courts to receive affidavits or statements on oath of accused persons for the purpose of applications for transfer, and the circumstances on this case rather go to show that this practice, if even legal, is not an altogether convenient one, and it certainly would appear that it would be a better practice, that affidavits setting forth grounds for the transfer should be made by some person other than the accused. The Magistrate put forward the statement made on oath, which had been reduced to writing, to the Tahsildar asking him to make a report. The application was made on the 22nd August, 1905. On the 23rd September the original complainant, who had instituted proceedings against Bindesri, withdrew his complaint, giving no reason for doing so, except that he was unable to produce witnesses to support the charge. On the same day the Magistrate ordered Bindesri to show cause why he should not be prosecuted in respect of the statement he had made on his application for transfer. 2. It certainly does seem somewhat remarkable that after the application for the transfer, the original complainant should have withdrawn his complaint. Applicant wished to examine in support of his statement on oath, witnesses, but the Magistrate did not hear them. The Tahsildar was not examined, and there was really nothing before the Court except the uncontradicted statement made on oath by the applicant when he applied for his transfer. Applicant wished to examine in support of his statement on oath, witnesses, but the Magistrate did not hear them. The Tahsildar was not examined, and there was really nothing before the Court except the uncontradicted statement made on oath by the applicant when he applied for his transfer. Under these circumstances and inasmuch as the original prosecution had so summarily come to an end, I am inclined to think that as a matter of discretion, it would have been better not to have sanctioned any prosecution. The statement made by the applicant was made for the sole purpose of getting the transfer of his case. However, the matter of discretion is not the question before me. The important question before me is whether or not the statement made by the applicant, who was at the time an accused per-sion, ought to be made the subjec-t-matter of a prosecution under section 193. In my opinion the principle has already been decided by this Court in In the matter of the petition of Barkat, [[1897] I.L.R., 19 All., 200.]. In that case an affidavit had been made by the petitioner grounding an application in revision to get rid of a conviction standing against him. Mr. Justice Blair there decided that inasmuch as he was an accused person, he could not be prosecuted in respect of false statements contained in the affidavit. The only distinction between that case and the present case, is the practice I have referred to. I am unable to see that this makes any difference in principle. I accordingly set aside the order of the Sessions Judge and also the order of the District Magistrate ordering the prosecution of the applicant and all pro-ceedidgs subsequently. The bail bond will be discharged.