Judgment.-This appeal is filed by P.W.7 in Sessions Case No. 179 of 1962 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Salem, against the order of the learned Judge directing that a complaint shall be preferred against P.W.7 for giving false evidence. The witness was examined as P.W.6 in the committal Court in R.R.C. No. 12 of 1962 where he stated as follows:— “At 3-30 p.m. P.W.1 and deceased came together. P.W.1 was standing and talking to me for about 10 minutes. He said he was going to see some bulls with P.W.1. It started drizzling. I went to Kurchi to my allotted house. At 5-30 p.m. I heard that Palanimuthu had been cut.” In the Sessions Court the appellant was examined as P.W.7 and he stated that he met the deceased on the morning of the occurrence and talked to him. He also added that he saw the deceased later that day at 7 p.m. in the village near a tea shop and heard about the death of the deceased only at 5-30 a.m. the next day and at about 7 a.m. he left his village as Deepavali was on the next day. The learned Sessions Judge found that the evidence given by the appellant in the Sessions Court was false and that he should be tried for the offence of giving false evidence. Mr. Ramaprasada Rao, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution as ordered by the learned Sessions Judge is illegal and cannot be proceeded with. According to the learned Counsel, after section 479-A of the Criminal Procedure Code was enacted, in the case of a witness intentionally giving false evidence proceeding should be taken against him only under section 479-A of the Criminal Procedure Code on the Court recording a finding that for the eradication of the evils of perjury and fabrication of false evidence and in the interests of the justice the accused should be prosecuted. In this case the judgment in the sessions case was delivered on the 16th January, 1963. Notice as required under section 479-A of the Criminal Procedure Code was not given at the time of the delivery of the judgment. But notice was given on 22nd January, 1963, six days after the date of judgment, requiring the appellant to show cause why he should not be prosecuted. Notice as required under section 479-A of the Criminal Procedure Code was not given at the time of the delivery of the judgment. But notice was given on 22nd January, 1963, six days after the date of judgment, requiring the appellant to show cause why he should not be prosecuted. Clause (6) of section 479-A of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that no proceeding shall be taken under sections 476 to 479 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. It is not denied that the prosecution is against a witness for intentionally giving false evidence and section 479-A is applicable. Section 479-A provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sections 476 to 479 inclusive, the procedure prescribed in section 479-A should be adopted. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court reported in Shabir Hussain Bholu v. State of Maharashtra1, it has been held that the provisions of sections 476 to 479 are totally excluded where an offence of the kind specified in section 479-A (1) is made out. The requirements of section 479-A has not been complied with in that a finding has not been given at the time of the delivery of judgment that it is expedient for the eradication of the evils of perjury and fabrication of false evidence and in the interests of justice that the appellant should be prosecuted for giving false evidence. The contention of the learned Counsel is therefore right and is upheld. The appeal is allowed and the order of the lower Court is set aside. K.S. ------ Appeal allowed.