JUDGMENT 1. This is a rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Patna to show cause why the order of the Deputy Magistrate of Bankipur, sanctioning the prosecution, of the applicant, under sec. 193, I.P.C, should not be set aside. The facts of the case are as follows: The applicant was a witness in a case pending before the Sessions Judge. The case pending before the Court of the Sessions Judge was a case of rioting; and, in the course of the trial of it, it was found necessary to examine the applicant. A commission was accordingly issued for his examination under sec. 503, C. Cr. P. The commission was addressed to, and executed by, Babu Siva Sankar Singh, a first class Deputy Magistrate. The deposition of the applicant was recorded from the 23rd to the 26th September 1905; and it was then submitted to the Sessions Judge of Patna. 2. Then an application was made for the prosecution of the applicant for giving false evidence in the course of that case. Sanction to prosecute the applicant was applied for to Babu Siva Sankar Singh; and he gave that sanction on the l6th January last in an order which certainly complies with the provisions of sec. 195, sub-sec. (4), Cr. P. C. It is, however, contended that Babu Siva Saukar Singh was not the proper authority to give sanction for the prosecution of the applicant Saadut All Khan. It is argued that the functions of Babu Siva Sankar Singh in this case were only ministerial, and that he was not, within the terms of sec. 195, sub-sec. (1), cl. (6), C. Cr. P., the Court in which the offence of giving false evidence, if any, was committed, because his duty was confined to the recording of the evidence of the applicant and the consideration the question as to whether that evidence was true or false was within the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge in whose Court the case of rioting, in which the Petitioner was a witness, was pending. 3. The Deputy Magistrate, Babu Siva Sankar Singh, submits that he was the Court, within the meaning of sec. 195 (1), cl. (b), Cr. P. C, and within the meaning of sec. 3 of the Evidence Act, as it was his duty to record the evidence of the applicant. 4. 3. The Deputy Magistrate, Babu Siva Sankar Singh, submits that he was the Court, within the meaning of sec. 195 (1), cl. (b), Cr. P. C, and within the meaning of sec. 3 of the Evidence Act, as it was his duty to record the evidence of the applicant. 4. We cannot, however, consider that this contention of the Deputy Magistrate is right. It may be that the learned Deputy Magistrate, when he recorded the evidence of the applicant, was a Court within the meaning of sec. 503 (3), that is to say, a Court for the purpose of issuing process against the applicant and recording his evidence; but it is clear to us that the word "Court " in sec. 195, sub-sec. (1), cl. (b), C. Cr. P., must mean the Court whose duty it is to consider the evidence, and decide whether it is true or false. We, therefore, think that the sanction for the prosecution of the applicant was not given by the proper authority. The proper authority was the Sessions Judge of Patna, and not the Deputy Magistrate, who acted only as Commissioner. We accordingly make the rule absolute and set aside the sanction granted by the Deputy Magistrate.