Order.-These are two civil revision petitions preferred against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, dated 14th November, 1975, allowing C.M.A. Nos. 122 and 123 of 1974 preferred before him against the order in I.A. Nos. 117 and 79 of 1974 respectively. O.S. No. 197 of 1972 was a suit pending on the file of the District Munsif’s Court, Srivaikuntam. When the suit was pending and before it was disposed of, the sixth defendant filed I.A. No. 117 of 1974 purporting to be under section 479-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, praying for recording a finding in the judgment that the 7th defendant in the suit had used forged documents knowing them to be forged, and that it was expedient in the interests of justice and for eradication of the evils of perjury and fabrication of false evidence that he should be prosecuted by laying a complaint before a competent Court of law for the offences under section 471, Indian Penal Code. The same sixth defendant filed I.A. No. 79 of 1974 against the same 7th defendant for a similar relief mentioning the offence as one under section 471, Indian Penal Code. Both these applications were dismissed by the learned District Munsif by order, dated 23rd April, 1974. By the time the applications were dismissed, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, had come into force, and thereafter, the applicant (6th defendant) filed C.M.A. Nos. 122 and 123 of 1974 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tuticorin which Court was the appellate Court with reference to the Court of the District Munsif in question. The learned Subordinate Judge, by his impugned order, dated 14th November, 1975, allowed the two C.M. As. And stated as follows in the conclusion of his judgment: “In the result, the appeal A.S. No. 113 of 1974 (the appeal preferred against the decree in O.S. No. 197 of 1972) fails and the same is dismissed with costs of contesting respondents 1 to 6. The cross-objection filed by 7th defendant is also dismissed with costs. C.M.A. Nos. 122 of 1974 and 123 of 1974 are allowed and the order of the lower Court in I.A. Nos. The cross-objection filed by 7th defendant is also dismissed with costs. C.M.A. Nos. 122 of 1974 and 123 of 1974 are allowed and the order of the lower Court in I.A. Nos. 79 of 1974 and 117 of 1974 are set aside and complaint will be forwarded to the competent Magistrate of the First Class, having jurisdiction for the prosecution of the 7th defendant for the offence under section: 471, Indian Penal Code.” It is this order that is sought to be revised in these civil revision petitions. 2. For the purpose of understanding the point raised, it is necessary to refer to certain statutory provisions. Section 471, Indian Penal Code, which was the section under which, the two applications filed before the learned District Munsif, wanted a prosecution to be launched reads as follows: “Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document, which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document.” Certain provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, have also to be read now. Section 195(1)© of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, states: “195 (1). No Court shall take cognizance- * * * * © of any offence described in section 463 or punishable under section 471, section 47,5 or section 476 of the same Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed by a party to any proceeding in any Court in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in such proceeding, except on the complaint in writing of such Court, or of some other Court to which such Court is subordinate.” The relevancy of this section is that section 471, Indian Penal Code falls within the scope of this provision. 3. Two other procedural sections which have to be referred to are section 476 (1) and section 479-A(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898: “476. 3. Two other procedural sections which have to be referred to are section 476 (1) and section 479-A(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898: “476. (1) When any Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court is, whether on application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in section 195, sub-section (1) clause (b) or clause ©, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary, record a finding to the effect and make a complaint thereof in writing signed by the presiding officer of the Court, and shall forward the same to a Magistrate of the First Class having jurisdiction, and may take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate or if the alleged offence is non-bailable may, if it thinks necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate, and may bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate. 479-A (1). 479-A (1). 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 state 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 orders 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.” On a reading of these sections, certain things are clear: Firstly section 479-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, applies only in respect of two matters, viz., a witness intentionally giving false evidence or intentionally fabricating false evidence, while section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, refers to the various offences mentioned in section 195, sub-section (1), clause (b) or clause © of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The second point of difference is that section 479-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, contemplates the Court recording a finding and making a complaint only at the time of the delivery of the judgment or final order disposing of the proceeding pending before it. On the other hand, section 476(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, does not impose any such limitation. Thirdly, section 479-A contemplates the Court taking action suo motu, while section 476(1) contemplates the Court taking action suo motu or on an application made to it. On the other hand, section 476(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, does not impose any such limitation. Thirdly, section 479-A contemplates the Court taking action suo motu, while section 476(1) contemplates the Court taking action suo motu or on an application made to it. Having regard to these points of difference and more so the number of offences covered by the respective sections, it is clear that the two sections cannot be confused with each other, and one is independent of the other. As far as the present case is concerned, having regard to the very; offence with reference to which the applicant before the learned District Munsif wanted the other side to be charged viz., section 471, Indian Penal Code, the section which will apply to the case is only section 476, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and not section 479-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. However, in the present case, the two applications, viz., I.A. Nos. 117 and 79 of 1974, made by the 6th defendant in the suit, were under section 479-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, only, and the said applications wanted complaints to be made for prosecution under section 471, Indian Penal Code, in one case and section 471 and the cognate provisions of the Indian Penal Code in the other. On the face of it, the said applications were incompetent because section 471, Indian Penal Code, is covered by section 476(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and not by section 479-A of that Code. Therefore, when the learned District Munsif dismissed these applications, he was perfectly right in doing so. Hence, when the learned Subordinate Judge allowed the civil miscellaneous appeals filed against the orders of the learned District Munsif, he was in error and was acting in excess of his jurisdiction in allowing the applications and directing a complaint to be made for prosecution under section 471, Indian Penal Code, to which section 479-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, can have no application whatever. 4. 4. As soon as this position was realised, Mr.K. Parasaran, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, contended that even though the learned Subordinate Judge may be wrong in allowing the civil miscellaneous appeals and setting aside the order of the learned District Munsif, yet in so far as he has referred to section 340 and section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which had come into force even by the time the learned District Munsif dismissed the applications, the learned Subordinate Judge must be deemed to have exercised his suo motu powers under section 340 read with section 341 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure, corresponding to sections 476 and 476-B of the old Code of Criminal Procedure. The handle for advancing this argument was sought to be found in the following statement contained in paragraph 50 of the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge. Towards the end of that paragraph after referring to the provisions contained in sections 476 and 479-A of the old Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Subordinate Judge pointed out: “Therefore the power conferred on the trial Court by section 476(1) may be exercised by this Court also by virtue of section 476-A (a mistake for section 476-B). The Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, has now been repealed by the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Sections 340 and 341 of the new Code contained provisions similar to sections 376 and 376-A (sic) of the old Code. Therefore, there is no impediment in law for this Court to take action under sections 340 and 341 of the new Code corresponding to sections 376 and 376-A (sic) of the old Code.” It is on the basis of this observation, the learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the learned Subordinate Judge exercised his suo motu powers as the appellate Court in ordering preferring of the complaint. I am unable to accept this contention for the simple reason that the learned Subordinate Judge has expressly allowed the civil miscellaneous appeals and set aside the orders passed by the learned District Munsif in I.A. Nos. 79 and 117 of 1974. I am unable to accept this contention for the simple reason that the learned Subordinate Judge has expressly allowed the civil miscellaneous appeals and set aside the orders passed by the learned District Munsif in I.A. Nos. 79 and 117 of 1974. If the learned Subordinate Judge has exercising his suo motu powers, he should have dismissed the civil miscellaneous appeals and must have specifically stated that he was acting pursuant to sections 340 and 341 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure in exercise of his sua motu powers of making the complaint. Hence, so long as the learned Subordinate Judge has not done so, it is not possible to agree with the learned Counsel for the respondent that such an inference should be drawn from the extracted observation of the learned Subordinate Judge in view of his express operative portion of the order that the civil miscellaneous appeals were allowed and the order of the learned District Munsif was set aside. 5. In these circumstances, I have no option but to allow the civil revision petitions and set aside the order of the learned Subordinate Judge. Accordingly, the civil revision petitions are ordered, and the order of the learned Subordinate Judge is set aside, and the order of the learned District Munsif dismissing I.A. Nos. 117 and 79 of 1974 will stand restored. There will be no order as to costs.