Judgment 1. It appears that the petitioner was a defendant in a small cause suit brought by the opposite party for the realisation of certain amount of money on a handnote. The petitioner filed a written statement in the suit, pleading that the amount advanced to him was actually less than the amount shown in the handnote and that the amount advanced had been repaid to the opposite party with interest. In support of this plea the petitioner examined himself as D. W. 1 and gave evidence. He also produced and relied upon a purja (Ext. A) said to have been granted by the father of the opposite party. The Small Cause Court Judge did not believe the petitioners case and granted a decree to the opposite party for the entire claim, holding that the purja had been manufactured for the purpose of the case. An application was made under Sec. 476, Code of Criminal Procedure, by the opposite party for prosecuting the petitioner. The application was rejected by the Small Cause Court Judge but, on an appeal preferred under Sec. 476B, the District Judge of Monghyr held that the petitioner should he prosecuted. He accordingly allowed the appeal and directed the learned Small Cause Court Judge to file a complaint against the petitioner "for using in court a forged purja having reason to believe that the same was forged." 2. In support of this application learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the provisions of Sec. 479A, Code of Criminal Procedure, acted as a bar in the present Case to the taking of proceedings for prosecuting the petitioner under Sec. 476, Code of Criminal Procedure. In support of this application learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the provisions of Sec. 479A, Code of Criminal Procedure, acted as a bar in the present Case to the taking of proceedings for prosecuting the petitioner under Sec. 476, Code of Criminal Procedure. Sec. 479A reads as follows:- "479-A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 476 to 479 inclusive, when any Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court is of opinion that any person appearing before it as a witness has intentionally given false evidence in any stage of judicial proceeding or has intentionally fabricated false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of judicial proceeding, and that, for the eradication of the evils of perjury and fabrication of false evidence and in the interests of justice, it is expedient that such witness should be prosecuted for the offence which appears to have been committed by him, the Court shall, at the time of the delivery of the judgment or final order disposing of such proceeding, record a finding to that effect stating its reasons therefore and may, if it so thinks fit, after giving the witness an opportunity of being heard, make a complaint thereof in writing signed by the presiding officer of the Court setting forth the evidence which, in the opinion of the Court, is false or fabricated and forward the same to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction, and may if the accused is present before the Court, take sufficient security for his appearance before such Magistrate and may bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate; Provided that where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, the complaint may be signed by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint. Explanation. -- For the purposes of this subsection, a Presidency Magistrate shall be deemed to be a Magistrate of the first class. (2) Such Magistrate shall thereupon proceed according to law and as if upon complaint made under Sec.200. (3) No appeal shall lie from any finding recorded and complaint made under Sub-section (1). Explanation. -- For the purposes of this subsection, a Presidency Magistrate shall be deemed to be a Magistrate of the first class. (2) Such Magistrate shall thereupon proceed according to law and as if upon complaint made under Sec.200. (3) No appeal shall lie from any finding recorded and complaint made under Sub-section (1). (4) Where, in any case, a complaint has been made under Sub-section (1), and an appeal has been preferred against the decision arrived at in the judicial proceeding out of which the matter has arisen, the hearing of the case before the Magistrate to whom the complaint was forwarded or to whom the case may have been transferred shall be adjourned until such appeal is decided; and the appellate Court, after giving the person against whom the complaint has been made an opportunity of being heard, may, if it so thinks fit, make an order directing the withdrawal of the complaint; and a copy of such order shall be sent to the Magistrate before whom the hearing of the case is pending. (5) In any case, where an appeal has been preferred from any decision of a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court but no complaint has been made under Sub-section (1), the power conferred on such Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court under the said sub-section may be exercised by the appellate Court; and where the appellate Court makes such complaint the provisions of Sub-section (1) shall apply accordingly, but no such order shall be made, without giving the person affected thereby an opportunity of being heard. (6) No proceedings shall be taken under Sections 476 to 479 inclusive for the prosecution of a person for giving or fabricating false evidence, it in respect of such a person proceeding may be taken under this section." The argument of learned Counsel is based upon the fast clause of the section. In support of this argument learned Counsel relied upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Jai Bir Singh V/s. Malkhan Singh, AIR 1958 All 364 and of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in In re Abdul Jabbar, AIR 1958 Andh Pra 469 and In re, Ponneri Dasi Reddi, AIR 1958 Andh Pra 657. In support of this argument learned Counsel relied upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Jai Bir Singh V/s. Malkhan Singh, AIR 1958 All 364 and of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in In re Abdul Jabbar, AIR 1958 Andh Pra 469 and In re, Ponneri Dasi Reddi, AIR 1958 Andh Pra 657. It was submitted by learned Counsel for the opposite party that the Allahabad decision was overruled by a later decision of the Allahabad High Court in Durga Prasad V/s. State of U. P., AIR 1959 All 744 and a similar view has been expressed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Public Prosecutor (Andh Pra) V/s. Kuraba Sanjeevamrna, AIR 1959 Andh Pra 567. In our opinion the point does not arise for decision in the present case because the gist of the complaint ordered to be made by the District Judge on appeal against the petitioner is not an offence falling within the purview of Section 193 of the Penal Code but is an offence within the purview of Sec.196 of the Penal Code or Sec. 471 of the Penal Code. It should be noticed that SPC. 479A only applies to 3 case where a witness has intentionally given false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding or has intentionally fabricated false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding. The language used is exactly similar to the language used in See. 193 of the Indian Penal Code, and it is obvious that Sec. 479A, Code of Criminal Procedure, therefore, applies to a case where an offence is alleged to have been committed under Sec.193 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge levelled against the petitioner in this case does not fall within the purview of Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code but it falls within the purview of Sec.196 or Section 471 of the Penal Code. The provisions of Sec. 479A do not apply to the present case. It follows, therefore, that there is no illegality in the order of the learned District Judge of Monghyr directing the Small Cause Court Judge to file a complaint for the prosecution of the petitioner for using in court a forged purja, having reason to believe that the same was forged". In our opinion there is no merit in this civil revision application which is accordingly dismissed. In our opinion there is no merit in this civil revision application which is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.