JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - The Petitioner filed an application on 9-8-1962 in the Court of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack praying therein for making necessary inquiry u/s 476, Code of Criminal Procedure and filing a complaint. The facts alleged in the petition were that the opposite party Krishna Kumar Basu filed Money Suit no. 156 of 1954 against the Petitioner in the Court of the First Munsif, Cuttack, in the name of his wife Srimati Sovana Basu for recovery of money due on a handnote alleged to have been executed by the Petitioner on 2-7-1951 in her favour. That suit was ultimately tried by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge. Judgment was delivered on 23-8-1957. The Petitioner asserted that in the judgment there was a finding that the hand note had been forged by the opposite party to maintain a false claim against the Petitioner and that the opposite party intentionally forged and fabricated the said hand note for the purpose of being used in a judicial proceeding, and in fact he utilised it in M. S. no. 256 of 1954. The suit had been disposed of by Sri B.K. Misra, First Additional Subordinate Judge. The application u/s 476, Code of Criminal Procedure was dismissed by Sri L.N. Samant, First Additional Subordinate Judge, on 7-1-1963 on the finding that the offences, alleged to have been committed by the opposite party, come within the scope of Section 479-A, Code of Criminal Procedure, and as his predecessor did not think it proper to proceed against the opposite party, the application u/s 476, Code of Criminal Procedure is not maintainable. Against this order the criminal revision has been filed. 2. On 12-7-1963 the Petitioner filed an application with a prayer that Srimati Sovana Basu, wire of Sri Krishna Kumar Basu and Sri Nagendranath Roy, the Gumasta of the opposite party, be impleaded as opposite parties in the criminal revision as the suit had been filed by Srimati Sovana Basu and the handnote, marked ext. 4/30 in the suit, was typed by Nagendranath Roy. This application was allowed by this Court on 19-7-1963 and they have been added as opposite parties. Mr. Madhabananda Das concedes that the revision is not maintainable against these two persons as they were not added as opposite parties in the trial Court. Mr. 4/30 in the suit, was typed by Nagendranath Roy. This application was allowed by this Court on 19-7-1963 and they have been added as opposite parties. Mr. Madhabananda Das concedes that the revision is not maintainable against these two persons as they were not added as opposite parties in the trial Court. Mr. Das contends that the application u/s 476, Code of Criminal Procedure is maintainable and the view taken by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge is erroneous. 3. In the statement of facts I have referred to the allegations made in the petition dated 9-8-1962. The facts alleged bring the application directly within the mischief of Section 479-A, Code of Criminal Procedure Sub-section (1) of Section 479-A prescribes it "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 the judicial proceeding or has intentionally fabricated false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of the 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 there for and may, if it so thinks fit, after giving the witness an opportunity of being heard, make a complaint thereof in writing...." The finding of Sri B. Misra, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, on ext. 4/a is "Ext. 4/a was a subsequent forgery just for being utilized in the suit. The finding to be recorded u/s 479-A must be in terms of the section. If the finding would have been to the effect "That Sri Basu, the witness examined in the suit, had intentionally given false evidence in the suit and had intentionally fabricated ext. 4/a for the purpose of being utilized in the suit 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 Sri Basu should be prosecuted for the offence so committed by him." then a complaint could be filed. 4/a for the purpose of being utilized in the suit 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 Sri Basu should be prosecuted for the offence so committed by him." then a complaint could be filed. Such a finding was to be recorded at the time of the delivery of the judgment on 23-8-1957 after giving reasons in support of the finding. The finding given by the learned Additional subordinate Judge falls far short of the legal requirements u/s 479-A. It is now well settled that in the absence of such a finding, no complaint can be filed u/s 479-A B.K. Pal Chaudhry Vs. The State of Assam, and Shabir Hussein Bholu Vs. State of Maharashtra, . 4. I have already said that the offences alleged to have been committed by Sri Krishna Kumar Basu directly come within the mischief of offences referred to in Section 479-A(1), Code of Criminal Procedure. The non-obstanate clause "notwithstanding any thing contained in Section 476 to 479 inclusive" in Sub-section (1), and Sub-section (6) prescribing "no proceeding shall be taken under Sections 476 to 479 both inclusive for the prosecution of a person for giving or fabricating false evidence, if in respect of such a person proceedings may be taken under this section", make it clear that in respect of offences referred to in Section 479-A(1), proceedings under Sections 476 to 479 are wholly excluded where an offence is of the kind specified in Section 479A(1). This view is also now well settled Shabir Hussein Bholu Vs. State of Maharashtra, . As the offences alleged in the petition before the learned Additional Subordinate Judge come within the mischief of Section 479A, the application u/s 476 is not maintainable and was rightly dismissed. 5. u/s 479-A(3) no appeal shall lie from any finding recorded and complaint made under Sub-section (1). If the application filed before the learned Additional Subordinate Judge is u/s 476, Code of Criminal Procedure, the criminal revision is barred u/s 476-B, Code of Criminal Procedure which specifies that in case of refusal by the Court to make a complaint u/s 476, an appeal lies to the Court to which the former Court is subordinate within the meaning of Section 195 Sub-section (3), Code of Criminal Procedure. No appeal was filed against the order dated 7-1-1963 of Sri L.N. Samant. On the Petitioner's own stand that his application is one u/s 476, the revision is incompetent. 6. If the application would be treated as one u/s 479-A for filing a complaint on the basis of the finding in the judgment, the question arises whether a Criminal Revision or a Civil Revision lies. In a Full Bench decision reported in AIR 1948 Pat 225 (F.B.), it was held that a Civil Revision lay against the appellate order u/s 476 Code of Criminal Procedure. In AIR 1948 Pat 76 (F.B.) their Lordships observed that when an appeal was to be filed, it would be a Criminal Appeal and not a Civil Appeal, and their Lordships' view was not inconsistent with the earlier Full Bench decision of that Court. The entire matter has been discussed fully in Hakim Rai Vs. The State. Their Lordships have referred to the sharp cleavage of opinion amongst the High Courts in India. I am inclined to follow Hakim Rai Vs. The State. Their Lordships laid down An appeal u/s 476-B, Code of Criminal Procedure is entirely a creature of and could be governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and has nothing to do with the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. Such an appeal is a criminal appeal and not a civil appeal although decided by Civil Court. The Court deciding such an appeal, whether it is a Criminal, Civil or Revenue Court, is acting as a Criminal Court under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure and there cannot be any revision u/s 115, Code of Civil Procedure, against the decision in a criminal appeal which must be logically governed by the provisions of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This passage lays down the correct law. In this case, though the revision has been filed directly against the original order, a criminal revision lies and not a civil revision. The principle enunciated in the aforesaid case applies with full force. The nomenclature that it would be treated as a Civil Criminal Revision is a misnomer and is the outcome of confusion of thought. 7. The learned trial Court had not fully discussed the facts. The hand note marked ext. The principle enunciated in the aforesaid case applies with full force. The nomenclature that it would be treated as a Civil Criminal Revision is a misnomer and is the outcome of confusion of thought. 7. The learned trial Court had not fully discussed the facts. The hand note marked ext. 4/a in Money Suit No. 256 of 1954 recites as follows: On demand I Sri Uchhabananda Samantaray, son of Sri Bhagaban Samantaray, of village Kolar, P.O. Sudersan, P.S. Tirtol, District Cuttack, at present residing at Rajabagicha, Town Cuttack, promise to pay Srimati Sovana Basu, wife of Sri Krishna Kumar Basu, of Cantonment Road, Cuttack, or order the sum of Rs. 1000/- (one thousand only) together with interest at 12 percent per annum for consideration received in cash (through her clerk Sri Debendranath Mohanty) today the 2nd day of July 1951. The entire recital is in type and there is a certificate by Sri Nagendranath Roy that he had typed it. According to the Petitioner, this typed recital of the handnote has been forged at the instance of Sri Krishna Kumar Basu. This stand appealed to the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Sri B.K. Misra, who recorded the finding that this ext. 4/a was a subsequent forgery just for being utilised in the suit. Ext. 4 is an endorsement made by the Petitioner just at the bottom of the typed recitals in the body of the hand note. Admittedly the entire endorsement has been made on four revenue stamps of one anna each affixed close to each other. The endorsement is to the effect. Received Rs. 1000/-only as loan. Uchhabananda Samantaray, 2-7-1951. The genuineness of the entire endorsement is admitted before me. On this endorsement, the suit can be decreed. Endorsement may not amount to a promissory note, but it is an unequivocal and clear statement on the part of the Petitioner that on 2-7-1951 he received Rs. 1000/- as a loan. The endorsement does not show from whom the loan was incurred. But extraneous evidence is admissible, in support of the case that the loan had been taken from Srimati Sovana Basu from whose custody the document is produced. In the face of this admission and statement of the Petitioner, it is not at all necessary for her to forge and fabricate the typed portion. But extraneous evidence is admissible, in support of the case that the loan had been taken from Srimati Sovana Basu from whose custody the document is produced. In the face of this admission and statement of the Petitioner, it is not at all necessary for her to forge and fabricate the typed portion. It does not advance the case of the opposite party very far by incorporating the recitals that the loan was taken from her. It escapes my comprehension that the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Sri B.K. Misra, could go to the extent of holding that the typed portion was forged in the face of the aforesaid admission and the scanty materials available in the case in support of a case of forgery. Even assuming that his view is correct, no Court of Justice, on the scanty materials before it, can go to the extent of recording a finding that there was intentional giving and fabrication of false evidence. Still more difficult it would be for the Court to record a further finding that in the interests of justice it is expedient that the witness Sri Krishna Kumar Basu should be prosecuted on the facts and circumstances of the case. Whether the application is u/s 476 or 479-A, Code of Criminal Procedure, the finding that the prosecution is expedient in the interests of justice is common to both. In the circumstances discussed above, I am of opinion that it is not expedient to launch a prosecution in the interests of justice. There is not even a prima facie case. 8. The revision fails and is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed