Judgment :- 1. This is a petition by the first accused in Sessions Case 52 of 1964 for action being taken by this Court against respondents (Pws.1 to 4 in the sessions case) under S.479A, Crl. PC., on the ground that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge of Kasaragod who tried the case, for no justifiable reasons failed to take action under S.479A or in the alternative to give an opportunity to the petitioner to move the trial court for initiating fresh proceedings under S.476 Crl. P.C. 2. There were three accused in the case including the petitioner. They were charged with offences under S.341 and 307 read with S.34 I.P.C. On a consideration of the evidence learned Assistant Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the charge levelled against the accused had not been brought home to them beyond reasonable doubt and giving the benefit of doubt he acquitted the accused. Learned Judge discussed the defence evidence and relying on the plea of alibi set up by the petitioner found that it would be unsafe to rely on the prosecution evidence to find the accused guilty. In the petition it is stated that during the course of argument a prayer was made for action being taken against the witnesses under S.479A Cr. PC., but in spite of that learned judge has refused to take action. 3. In the petition it is stated that during the course of argument a prayer was made for action being taken against the witnesses under S.479A Cr. PC., but in spite of that learned judge has refused to take action. 3. S.479A provides: "(A) Notwithstanding anything contained in S.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 therefor 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: xx xx xx xx" Sub-section (5) says: "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-S. (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-S. (1) shall apply accordingly, but no such order shall be made, without giving the person affected thereby an opportunity of being heard." Sub-section (6) provides: "No proceedings shall be taken under S.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." 4. Where a witness is sought to be proceeded against for giving or fabricating false evidence in a judicial proceeding before a civil, revenue or criminal court the procedure for filing the complaint against him must be governed by S.479A which lays down a self contained set of rules on the subject and S.476, which prior to the enactment of S.479A applied in the matter of such a prosecution is no longer applicable. The opening words of sub-s. (1) of S.479A, namely, 'Notwithstanding anything contained in S.476 to 479 inclusive' make the intention of the legislature clear. The same intent is made still clearer by sub-s. (6) of S.479A which plainly lays down that where in respect of a person proceedings could have been taken under S.479A Crl. P.C., no proceedings shall be taken under S.476 to 479. 5. This is the view that is taken in the decision of the Supreme Court in Shabir Hussain v. State of Maharastra (AIR. 1963 SC. 816), where it is stated: "Thus bearing in mind the non-obstante clause at the commencement of S.479A and the provisions of sub-s. (6) it would follow that only the provisions of o sub-s-(1) of S.479A must be resorted to by the court for the purpose of making a complaint against a person for intentionally giving false evidence or for intentionally fabricating false evidence at any stage of the proceeding before it." This view is again reiterated in the decision in Babu Lal v. State of U. P. (AIR. 1964 SC. 725). 6. For exercising the powers conferred by S.479A the court has in the first instance to form an opinion that the person against whom complaint is to be lodged has committed one of the two categories of offences referred to therein. The second condition is that the court has to come to the conclusion that for the eradication of the evils of perjury and fabrication of false evidence and in the interests of justice it is expedient that a witness should be prosecuted for an offence which appears to have been committed by him. If the court does not form such an opinion that the witness has given intentionally false evidence, then no question of making a complaint can properly arise. If the court does not form such an opinion that the witness has given intentionally false evidence, then no question of making a complaint can properly arise. Similarly where the court has formed an opinion that though the witness has intentionally given false evidence or intentionally fabricated false evidence the nature of the perjury is not such as to make it expedient in the interests of justice to make a complaint, it has a discretion not to make a complaint. It cannot be urged that where the court wilfully refuses to record at the time of delivering the judgment or final order disposing of the proceedings before it that for the eradication of the evil of perjury and in the interests of justice it is expedient that the witness should be prosecuted for the offence which appears to have been committed by him it could later resort to the provisions of S.476. S.476 is a general provision dealing with the procedure to be followed in respect of a variety of offences affecting the administration of justice, but in so far as certain offences falling under S.193 to 195 are concerned the court before which that person has appeared as a witness and which disposed of the case can alone make a complaint. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the object of the section would be defeated where the trial court may have omitted to record a finding to the necessary effect either through oversight or negligence and in such cases the guilty witnesses would go unpunished, because no complaint could be made after the judgment in the case: has once been delivered. The intention of the Legislature as can be deduced from the language of S.479A is that it is the trial court which is eminently in a fit position to come to a conclusion whether a certain witness has so perjured himself that action has to be taken against him. That court has the opportunity of hearing and seeing the witness which no other court would have. Occasions would be rare indeed where the trial court would not be in a position to decide whether interests of justice require that action should be taken. That court has the opportunity of hearing and seeing the witness which no other court would have. Occasions would be rare indeed where the trial court would not be in a position to decide whether interests of justice require that action should be taken. The section itself provides that where by some mischance the trial court has failed to detect the perjury, the appellate court when the case is before it may discover it and if it so does it is open to that court also to record a finding that the witness has perjured himself simultaneously when it delivers its judgment, and in that event the appellate court can also exercise the same powers as has been vested in the court of first instance. Of course, after giving an opportunity to be heard to the person affected. If the contention of the learned counsel is that in cases where the trial court has omitted to take action and file a complaint and in such cases when the matter is not taken up in appeal, proceedings should be allowed to be started under S.476 Cr. PC. and that it could not have been the intention of the legislature that in such cases no complaint could be filed and the perjuring witness is allowed to go unpunished, all I can say is that the legislature has not only failed to express that intention, but has in fact expressed a contrary intention, and it is for the legislature to make the desired provision should it consider it fit to do so. Courts can only interpret the section as it stands - Vide the decision in Amolok v. State (AIR. 1961 Raj. 220). This is the view that is shared by some of the other High Courts also which have been referred to in the case in AIR. 1961 Raj. 220 (cited supra). 8. Therefore, where the court of first instance has omitted to record a finding as required by sub-s. (1) of S.479A simultaneously with the delivery of its judgment, then the matter ends and it is not possible to hold the view that in such cases the court can still act under S.476 Crl. PC. 1961 Raj. 220 (cited supra). 8. Therefore, where the court of first instance has omitted to record a finding as required by sub-s. (1) of S.479A simultaneously with the delivery of its judgment, then the matter ends and it is not possible to hold the view that in such cases the court can still act under S.476 Crl. PC. In the present case in spite of the matter being argued and brought to the notice of the court learned Assistant Sessions Judge did not consider that it was a case fit for action being taken under S.479A. So no further action can be taken on this matter. It is now well-settled that S.561A confers no new powers on the High Court and that it merely safeguards all existing inherent powers to secure the ends of justice. The High Court cannot pass any orders which would conflict with the provisions of the Code. For the reasons stated above, this petition is dismissed. Dismissed.