Judgment 1. This is an application for revision of the order passed by a Munsif Magistrate of the first class at Gopalganj, directing a complaint to be filed under S. 193 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. 2. The facts leading to the impugned order are these. The petitioner had lost his bicycle at Jadopur Bazar some fifteen or twenty days before the 25th April 1963, on which date, when he had again gone to the said Bazar, he found that the opposite party was negotiating with one Salim Nat for the sale of the bicycle. A scuffle ensued between the petitioner and the opposite party over the bicycle and, on an alarm raised by the petitioner, the opposite party left the bicycle and fled away. The petitioner brought the bicycle before the officer in charge of Gopalganj police station and also filed a written report before him. Ultimately, the opposite party was put on trial for an offence under S. 411 of the Indian Penal Code. The opposite party pleaded not guilty to the charge. In course of the trial, the petitioner examined himself as P.W. 1 and a number of other witnesses and also filed a receipt in respect of the purchase of the bicycle by him. 3. The trial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the receipt was forged and also disbelieved the case of the petitioner that, on the date of the occurrence, he had found the bicycle with the opposite party. In the last paragraph of the impugned order, the learned Magistrate directed a complaint to be filed against the petitioner under S. 193 of the Indian Penal Code in these terms : "Ismen prativadi ne jali aur banakar gawahi diya ki cycle uaka tha aur uski pushti men rasid padarth ka bhi jali banay asliye nyay ke hit men yah awashyak hai ki uspar dhara 193 ke antargat mukadma chalaya jay aur sath sath uspar jhutha dava karne ka bhi bad chale. Is nimitt uske wiruddh paripadpatra upasthit kiya jay." 4. It is contended by Mr. Awadh Kishore Pragad, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the order directing the complaint to be filed in this case against the petitioner has not been passed, as contemplated by Sub-Section (1) of S. 479A of the Criminal P.C., and the same should be set aside. 5. It is contended by Mr. Awadh Kishore Pragad, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the order directing the complaint to be filed in this case against the petitioner has not been passed, as contemplated by Sub-Section (1) of S. 479A of the Criminal P.C., and the same should be set aside. 5. Sub-Section (1) of S. 479 of the Code, so far as it is material for the purposes of the present case is in these terms :- "When any ...... Criminal Court is of opinion that any person appearing before it as a witness has intentionally given false evidence or has intentionally fabricated false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of the judicial proceedings............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 judgement or final order disposing of such proceeding, record a finding to that effect stating its reason therefor and may, if it thinks fit, after giving the witness an opportunity of being heard, make a complaint thereof." This sub section makes it clear that the Court intending to make a complaint has to record a finding (1) that, in its opinion, a person appearing before it as a witness has intentionally given any false evidence or fabricated such evidence and (2) for the eradication of the evils of perjury and fabrication of false evidence and (3) in the interests of justice it is expedient that the witness should be prosecuted for the offence in question. In the present case, there is no finding in the impugned order that what the petitioner did intentionally and that the complaint should be filed for the eradication of the evils of perjury and fabrication of false evidence. It, however, states that the complaint should be made against the petitioner in the interests of justice. 6. A reference to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Dr. It, however, states that the complaint should be made against the petitioner in the interests of justice. 6. A reference to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Dr. B.K. Pal Chaudhury V/s. State of Assam, AIR 1960 SC 133 makes it clear that, where, in the order of the Court below, directing a complaint to be filed against a witness, there is no finding recorded by it that the witness has intentionally given any false evidence and for the eradication of the evils of perjury and in the interests of justice, it is expedient to proceed against him, the order is made in breach of the express provisions of Sub-S. (1) of S. 479A of the Code and cannot be allowed to stand. In the instant case, the operative portion of the impugned order which directs the complaint to be filed does not state that the petitioner had intentionally given false evidence. It is also silent on the point whether the prosecution is being ordered for the eradication of the evils of perjury and, therefore, the order has to be set aside. The appellant in the case before the Supreme Court was a medical doctor and was examined as a defence witness in a criminal case in which three persons were charged under S. 376 of the Penal Code with the offence of rape. That case was tried with the aid of a jury and ended in acquittal. On appeal to the High Court of Assam against the order of acquittal, that Court came to the conclusion that the offence of rape had been established by the evidence of the doctor examined by the prosecution and other relevant evidence, and two of the accused persons were convicted. In that case, the appellant, in his evidence, had stated that the marks on the cheeks of the girl appeared to be insect bite and that the hymen was not ruptured and that he found no evidence of rape on her person. Thus, there was direct contradiction between the prosecution evidence and the evidence of the appellant on the question whether rape had been committed on the girl. Thus, there was direct contradiction between the prosecution evidence and the evidence of the appellant on the question whether rape had been committed on the girl. After the delivery of their judgement, the learned Judges of the High Court passed an order directing the issue of notice to the appellant to show cause why he should not be prosecuted under S. 193 of the Penal Code for giving false evidence in the case. It may be stated that the Judgement passed by the High Court did not specifically state that the appellant before the Supreme Court had intentionally given false evidence or that it was for the eradication of evils of perjury and in the interests of justice that he should be prosecuted. When the appellants appeared before the Court in pursuance of the notice to show cause why he should not be prosecuted under S. 193 of the Penal Code for giving false evidence, the matter was heard by another Bench consisting of Deka and Mehrotra, JJ. Deka, J., while directing the complaint to be made contented himself by saying that the procedure laid down by S. 479A(1) of the Code had been substantially followed except that, in older to avoid prejudice to the appellant at the trial to follow the complaint, the reasons for supposing the witness to have perjured had not been elaborately or specifically dealt with. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court disagreed from the view taken by Deka, J. and held - "It does not seem to us that this is a satisfactory way of dealing with the question raised." In the opinion of their Lordships, substantial compliance with the provisions of Sub-S. (1) of S. 479A of the Code was really a breach of the said provisions, and, consequently the order directing the complaint to be filed against the appellant was set aside. In the case before me also, the order of the learned Magistrate has also to be set aside, because the provisions of this Sub-Section have not been complied with. 7. The result, therefore, is that the application is allowed, the order passed by the learned Magistrate directing the complaint to be filed against the petitioner is set aside.