JUDGMENT 1. Both these applications under section 482 Cr. P.C. can be decided by a common order. 2. The petitioner, Ram Prashad is carrying on his business at Nawa and an order was passed by the Income-tax Commissioner, Jodhpur on May 13, 1981 under Section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act for taking search was carried out on May 13, 1981 and during the course of the search certain documents including account-books of Moolchand Joshi and a promissory note in the name of Remeshwarlal were seized by the raiding party for the purposes of enquiry and investigation Shri D.D. Verma Income tax Officer, who conducted the search, recorded the statement of the petitioner Ram Prasad at Nawa on May 13, 1981 and May 14, 1981. Thereafter, the petitioner was further interrogated by Shri A.N. Bhargava Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Income-tax, at Jodhpur en August 7, 1981. In respect of the statement of Ram Prashad recorded at Nawa on May 13, 1981 and May 14, 1981, a complaint was lodged against him in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Nawa on the ground that he has committed an offence punishable under Section 181 and 193 1.P.C. The learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence by his order dated April 30, 1983. in respect of the statement wade by the petitioner Ram Prasad at Jodhpur on August 7, 1981, a complaint was filed in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur, for an offence under Section 181 1.P.C. on the allegation that the petitioner had made a false statement on oath before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Income-tax. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur took cognizance of the case for an offence under Section 181 I.P.C. by his order dated June 21, 1983. 3. Initially one petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. was filed by the petitioner challenging the two orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nawa dated April 30, 1983 and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur dated June 21, 1983 taking cognizance in the two cases. Thereafter, both the matters were separated and two separate petitions have been flied challenging the validity of the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nawa and the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur. 4. Thereafter, both the matters were separated and two separate petitions have been flied challenging the validity of the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nawa and the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was examined at two different places in respect of the same matter and as such his statement was a continuous one. I am unable to agree with the aforesaid contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. On May 13, 1981, the petitioner's statement was recorded by Shri D.D. Verma, Income-tax Officer at Nawa and if in the course of that statement the petitioner had made any false statement on oath or had intentionally given false evidence in the course of judicial proceedings, then cognizance can be taken in respect thereof at Nawd for offences punishable under Sections 181 and 193 I.P.C. Thereafter, the petitioner was again interrogated at Jodhpur on August 7, 1981 by Shri A.N. Bhargava, Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, as mentioned above. If in the course of the interrogation at Jodhpur, the petitioner made any false statement then cognizance can certainly be taken in respect thereof by a Magistrate at Jodhpur for an offence under Section 181 I.P.C. The making of a false statement or intentionally giving false evidence at two different places constituted two different offences and as such both proceedings in respect of the two different statements at Nawa - and Jodhpur can be taken cognizance of separately by the Magistrates at Nawa and Jodhpur. As such the proceedings at both these places can proceed separately as they relate to false statements or false evidence allegedly given at Nawa and Jodhpur separately. In this view of the matter I do not find any substance in the applications under Section 482 Cr. P.C. and so both the applications arc dismissed. The records may be returned to the respective courts at Nawa and Jodhpur immediately and the Magistrates concerned are directed to expedite the hearing of the respective cases pending before them.Application dismissed. *******