Short Note : 1. On 2-8-1973, the non-petitioner Angad filed an application supported by an affidavit alleging that the affidavit filed by Punna in support of the case of the petitioner contains a false averment to the effect that he is a resident of village Khaira-Kala and, as such, action should be taken against him. Acting on this application, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate held a preliminary inquiry in the eourse of which he examined Punna and Shri Anantram Gupta Advocate and passed the following order on 1-10-1973 :- ^^1- vkosnd ykyfd'ku Lo;a mifLFkr gSA eSaus vukosnd vaxn }kjk fn;s vkosnu i= rFkk 'kiFki= ds vk/kkj ij dh xbZ tkap ds rF;ksa ij fopkj fd;kA vkosnd ds lkeus iqUuk us vius c;ku esa Lo;a Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mlds }kjk vius 'kiFki= esa >wB cksyk x;kA ,slh fLFkfr esa eSa vukosndx.k ds fo:} orZeku Ádj.k lekIr fd;s tkus dk vkns'k nsrk gawA D;ksafd iwoZ esa fn;k x;k /kkjk 112 dk vkns'k bl 'kiFki= ls ÁkIr lwpuk ds vk/kkj ij gh fn;k x;k FkkA 2- lkFk gh vkosnd ykyfd'ku rFkk xokg iqUuk ds fo:} /kkjk 199 rFkk 200 vkbZŒihŒlhŒ ds vUrxZr dk;Zokgh gsrq n.Mkf/kdkjh ÁFke Js.kh] lcyx<+ dks f'kdk;r Hksth tkosA** 2. Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioner moved the Sessions Judge, Morena, in revision, who has made this reference recommending that the whole of the impugned order is liable to be quashed. Held: It is not disputed that having regard to the provisions of sub-section (6) of section 479-A, no proceedings could have been taken under sections 476 to 479 of the Code. In other words, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate could proceed only under section 479-A of the Code. Seen that way, the order for prosecution is manifestly wrong because it does not satisfy any of the requirements of that section. As I look at it, however, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate proceeded to inquire into the matter under section 476 of the Code though quite wrongly. Remedy against that order was, therefore, by way of an appeal under section 476-B of the Code. However, where a superior Court has overlooked the alternative of an appeal before him under section 476-B, as in the Instant case, it would be open to this Court to set right the wrong in revision [(See Behari Lal v. Sheikh Abdul Qadir Hamyari, AIR 1940 Lahore 290 (2)]. However, where a superior Court has overlooked the alternative of an appeal before him under section 476-B, as in the Instant case, it would be open to this Court to set right the wrong in revision [(See Behari Lal v. Sheikh Abdul Qadir Hamyari, AIR 1940 Lahore 290 (2)]. The impugned order in so far as it relates to prosecution of the petitioner and his witness Punna under sections 199 and 200 IPC is, therefore, liable to be set aside as without jurisdiction. Equally arbitrary was the order dropping the proceedings, for, the order under section 112 of the Code was made relying not only on the affidavit of Punna but also those of the petitioner and one Mavashya Moreover, the statement about the place of his residence as given by Punna in the affidavit was not made on oath. As a matter of fact, in the facts deposed to by him on oath in the affidavit, there is no reference to his place of residence. At any rate, the matter was not that much serious as to call for such drastic action against the witness and still less against the petitioner. AIR 1940 Lahore 292 relied on. Reference accepted.