JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - This is a petition in revision against the appellate judgment of the Sessions Judge of Kalahandi, maintaining the conviction of the Petitioner u/s 474, Indian Penal Code and the sentence of two year's rigorous imprisonment passed on him by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Bhawanipatna. 2. There was a proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure between the Petitioner (first party) and his cousin Lakhman Naik and some other persons (Second Party) in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Dharamgarh, in Criminal Mis. Case No. 70 of 1956. The dispute between the parties was in respect of actual possession of Plot No. 131 of village Bandigaon within Jayapatna P.S. which was formerly Bhogra land entered in Kata No. 4 of the Village. It was alleged that the Petitioner with a view to establish his claim to possession over that plot filed before the said Sub-divisional Magistrate, a certified copy of Khata No. 4 of that Village (Ext. 1) in which there are entries under the Remarks Column (Exts. 1/1 and 1/2) to show that the disputed plot was in the actual possession of the first party (Petitioner). The second party however challenged these entries in the Remarks Column as forgeries alleging that they had been interpolated after the certified copy of the Khata was issued to the first party by the Revenue authorities. 3. The original records were called for and it came to light that the said entries in the Remarks Column are subsequent interpolations. Another certified copy of Khata 4 was also filed by the second party Ext. 4. There, the entries (Exts. 1/1 and 1/2) do not appear under the Remarks Column. Even to the naked eye it is clear that the entries have been made in ink different from that used in making the main entries in Ext. 1. 4. The learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Dharamgarh in his judgment (Ext. 4. There, the entries (Exts. 1/1 and 1/2) do not appear under the Remarks Column. Even to the naked eye it is clear that the entries have been made in ink different from that used in making the main entries in Ext. 1. 4. The learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Dharamgarh in his judgment (Ext. 7) passed on 12th May 1958 declared the possession of the second party and also made the following comment on the interpolations in the certified copy of the Khatian produced by the Petitioner: On verification it is seen that the original record of rights the Bhogra lands have been recorded in the name of Narayan Naik without any note about possession, but in the certified copy of the Patta filled by the first party, a possessory note has been made which apparently is an after entry. So the patta produced by the first party does not appear to be a genuine one and so it does not deserve consideration. By 'patta' the learned Magistate obviously meant the Khatian (Ext. 1). 5. While delivering judgment on the same date (12th May 1958) the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate made the following order in the order sheet in the Miscellaneous names: 12-5-1955. Parties present. Second party is found to be in possession of the disputed land and as such he is entitled to possession till he is evicted in due course of law. The paddy seized should he returned to them. Also the produce of last year should be returned to them by the receiver. Ask S.I. to release the lands in favour of the second party. Second party has filed a petition for an enquiry u/s 476, Code of Criminal Procedure as the first party filed a forged patta in this case. From the original record of rights it is seen that no note of possession ha been made in favour of the first party are after entries and as such a miscellaneous case should be started against him. Notice first party to appear with his witnesses on 2-6-1958 for enquiry u/s 476, Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. Both the lower Courts held that the certified copy of the Khatian (Ext. 1) was obtained by the Petitioner from the copying Department of the Revenue office, that it was he who filed it through his lawyer in the proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure and that the entries (Exts. 6. Both the lower Courts held that the certified copy of the Khatian (Ext. 1) was obtained by the Petitioner from the copying Department of the Revenue office, that it was he who filed it through his lawyer in the proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure and that the entries (Exts. 1/1 and 1/2) are subsequent interpolations. They also held that the Petitioner had the necessary criminal intention while filing Ext. 1, namely to obtain fraudulently a decision in his favour in that proceeding, in the hope that the interpolation may not be detected and that the Mtrate would attach considerable importance to the entry in the Remarks Column made by the Settlement authorities regarding actual possession of the plots with the Petitioner. Thus, there can be no doubt that the necessary ingredients to prove the offence u/s 474, Indian Penal Code have been made out. 7. Though the actual person who forged the entries (Exts. 1/1 and 1/2) is not triable, nevertheless, the Courts were justified in holding that the Petitioner knew or had reasons to believe that the entries were forged and that he filed the forged document before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Dharamgarh, with the necessary criminal intention. 8. Mr. Kanungo for the Petitioner raises an interesting question of law which requires consideration. The case against the Petitioner in the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge was initiated on the basis of a complaint filed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate himself. In that complaint the offences with which the Petitioner was charged were both u/s 471, Indian Penal Code and other Sections 474 and 193, Indian Penal Code which come within the scope of Section 195(1)(b) and (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure As already pointed out, the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, in the body of his judgment in the proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure rejected the impugned document holding that it was not genuine. In the order sheet of the same date, he directed that a proceeding u/s 476, Code of Criminal Procure shall be started against the first party (Petitioner) for forgoing a patta, observing that it was clear that the disputed entries in the patta were made by the Petitioner later on, and that a miscellaneous case should be started against him. Then he directed the issue of notice against the Petitioner u/s 476. Then he directed the issue of notice against the Petitioner u/s 476. Code of Criminal Procedure After holding the enquiry he filed the complaint. 9. Mr. Kanungo's contention was that for offences of this type committed in relation to a proceeding in Court an enquiry u/s 476. Code of Criminal Procedure is barred in view of the provisions of Section 479A inserted in the Code of Criminal Procedure by the amending Act of 1955. Sub-section (1) of the said Section 479-A, Code of Criminal Procedure lays down: (1) Not withstanding anything contained in Sections 476 to 479 inclusive whether any Court (Revenue or Criminal) is of opinion. that any person appearing before it as a witness has intentionally given false evidence in any stage of the judicial proceeding, or has intentionally fabricated false evidence for the purpose of being used in a judicial proceeding and that for the eradication of the evils of perjury and fabrication of false evidence and in the interest 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 delivering judgment or final order disposing of such proceeding, record a finding to that effect stating its reasons there for and may, if it so thinks fit, after giving the witness an opportunity of being heard make a complaint in writing.... Mr. Kanungo is therefore right in saying that if the offence of fabrication false evidence or other allied offence be held to have been committed, in course of a proceeding in court, an enquiry u/s 476, Code of Criminal Procedure is ruled out by the aforesaid Section 479-A, and that Court must at the time of delivering judgment give the necessary finding and this raisin therefore as required by Sub-section (1) of Section 479-A, Code of Criminal Procedure and only thereafter that court may file a complaint. It is true that the said sub-section authorises the Court to give the witness an opportunity of being heard and that while giving him such an opportunity some sort of an enquiry may also be made by the Court though, strictly speaking, it may not be enquiry u/s 476, Code of Criminal Procedure in view of the non-obstinate clause: "Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 476 to 479. Occurring in the opening portion of Sub-section (1) of Section 479A, Code of Criminal Procedure Mr. Kanungo's argument is that as the judgment of the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate dated 12th May 1958 (Ex. 7) does not contain the particulars required by Sub-section (1) of Section 479-A, Code of Criminal Procedure the complaint filed by him was void abinitio. He relied on The State Vs. Bijli Pathak and Another. Ramdeep Singh and Others Vs. Shyama Singh and Others, and Dhan Singh Khadak Singh Raghubansi Vs. Ramsaran Dariyao, . 10. In view of the clear language of Sub-section (1) of Section 479-A and decisions cited above there can be no doubt the correctness of Mr. Kanungo's contention that if the necessary findings, the reasons and other particulars required by the aforesaid sub-section are not found in the judgment or final order of the Court, any complaint filed by that Court for the prosecution of a person for fabricating false evidence may become void. 11. But here the question is whether there has been substantial compliance with the requirements of Sub-section (1) of Section 479A, Code of Criminal Procedure In his judgment the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate held that the impugned entries (Exts. 1/1 and 1/2) did not appear to be genuine. In the order sheet of the same date while writing out the operative portion of his judgment he further directed that a miscellaneous case should be started against the Petitioner and directed issue of notice to him for enquiry u/s 476, Code of Criminal Procedure It is that true this portion of his order was written by him in the order sheet (Ext. 6) immediately after a petition was filed by the rival party alleging that the Petitioner had committed forgery, but as the judgment was pronounced on the same day on which the order sheet was written they must both be read together. 6) immediately after a petition was filed by the rival party alleging that the Petitioner had committed forgery, but as the judgment was pronounced on the same day on which the order sheet was written they must both be read together. It will then be seen that though there is no express finding to the effect that for the eradication of the evils of perjury and fabrication of false evidence, and in the interests of justice it was expedient that the witness should be prosecuted for the offence which appeared to have been committed by him, nevertheless, in view of the finding of the Magistrate and his decision to start a miscellaneous case against the Petitioner and to give him notice of such an enquiry, it may be reasonably inferred that the requirements of Sub-section (1) of Section 479-A, Code of Criminal Procedure In my opinion, therefore, the lower appellate court was right in holding that there was substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 479-A, Code of Criminal Procedure This case is thus distinguishable from the aforesaid three Patna and M.P. decisions, where from the admitted facts it appears that there was no compliance whatsoever with the provisions of the aforesaid Section, A fundamental distinction must be made between a case where there is complete commission to fulfil the requirements of a statutory provision, on the one hand, and a case where there has been partial irregularity in complying with the requirements of the same on the other. In the latter case the question of prejudice may become very material but here no prejudice has been made out. There was an enquiry in which the Petitioner was given an opportunity to show cause why a complaint was not to be filed, for his prosecution, I am therefore not satisfied that any ground has been made out for challenging the legality of the trial. 12. So far as the sentence is concerned though I do not wish to mines the gravity of an offence of this type committed by the Petitioner in relation to a proceeding in a Court of justice, I think the sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment seems somewhat excessive. While therefore upholding the conviction of the Petitioner u/s 474, Indian Penal Code. I reduce the sentence to one year's rigorous imprisonment. Subject to this modification in the sentence, the revision petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. While therefore upholding the conviction of the Petitioner u/s 474, Indian Penal Code. I reduce the sentence to one year's rigorous imprisonment. Subject to this modification in the sentence, the revision petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed