K.S. LODHA, J.—This is an application under sec. 308, Cr.P.C. for according sanction for launching a criminal complaint for offence under sec. 193. I.P.C. against the non-petitioner Deokishan. It is alleged that the police had filed challan for offences under Ss. 395, 307, 341, 342 and 120-B, I.P.C. against Bheru Singh, Ashok Singh and Nawab Khan in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bheem. The present non-petitioner Deokishan was a co-accused in the said case. However, he was made an approver under sec. 306, Cr.P.C. and his statement under sec. 164, Cr.P.C. was got recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur, who gave pardon to accused Deokishan. Later, the accused was committed to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rajasamand, but when he was produced as a prosecution witness in that case, he resiled from his statement under sec. 164, Cr.P.C. and also did not comply with the conditions under which pardon was granted to him. It is alleged that Deokishan purposely gave false evidence before the learned Sessions Judge and concealed the facts. It is further contended that he has, thus, not complied with the conditions under which the pardon had been granted to him. In these circumstances, it is prayed that it is a fit case where a complaint under sec. 193, J. P. C. should be filed, and for that purpose sanction of this court under sec. 308, Cr.P.C. is essential. 2. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. B.N. Calla, learned counsel for the non-petitioner, and have gone through the record. It, of course, appears that non-petitioner Deokishan has gone back upon his previous statement under sec. 164, Cr.P.C. and denied the very knowledge of the facts which he had already stated in that statement. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, disbelieved that statement of Deokishan, which he gave before him at the trial. He has, however, on the basis of other evidence on the record, found the accused Ashoksingh, Bherusingh and Nawab Khan guilty of the offence under sec. 395, I.P.C. and has sentenced them to five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/-each„ by his judgment dated December 22, 1986, an appeal against which is pending before this court. He has, however, on the basis of other evidence on the record, found the accused Ashoksingh, Bherusingh and Nawab Khan guilty of the offence under sec. 395, I.P.C. and has sentenced them to five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/-each„ by his judgment dated December 22, 1986, an appeal against which is pending before this court. It further appears that after the statement of Deokishan had been recorded in that sessions case being No. 37/82, a challan for offences under sections 395, 307, 341, 342 and 120-B, etc. I.P.C. was filed against Deokishan in respect of the same incident, out of which sessions case No. 37/82 arose, before the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bheem, and the case has been committed to the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand, and charges for offence under sections 120-B, 395, and 342, I.P.C. have been framed against Deokishan in sessions case No. 44/83. Some prosecution witnesses have also been examined in that case. In these circumstances the question is whether sanction for filing complaint for offence under sec. 193, I.P.C. should be accorded or not. I am of the opinion that when the prosecution has already been launched against the accused non-petitioner Deokishan for the original offences in respect of which he had been tendered pardon, it will not be in the interest of justice and expedient to further prosecute him for perjury. If the appellant is convicted of those offences or any of them, which cannot be said to be unlikely for any reason, no useful purpose would be served by further prosecuting him under Sec. 193, I.P.C. In the case of the conviction of the appellant in relation to the original offences, the sentence or sentences that may be awarded to the non-petitioner, would also not be too light. I am supported in this view by Local Govt. vs. Bambhir Bhujua (1) and State vs. Gurdial Singh (2). 3. For the reasons stated above, the sanction for prosecuting non-petitioner Deokishan under sec. 193, I.P.C. is refused. The application is, accordingly, rejected.