Judgment :- The petitioners are challenging the propriety of the Court below in issuing notice to them to show causes why they should not be prosecuted for offences punishable under S. 471 read with Sections 463, 464 and 466, I.P.C. The first petitioner is the President of Manchadimood Coir Vyavasaya Sahakarana Sanghom. He was P.W. 2 in S.T. Case No. 41 of 1984 before the Special Judge for trial of offences under the Essential Commodities Act, Trichur, 2nd petitioner P. K. Damodaran was DW 1 in that proceeding. 2. One Jayaprakash and another were tried before the Special Court for violation of the provision of S. 7(i)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act and Clause 8(1) of the Coconut Husks Control Order, 1973. The allegation against Jaya Prakash and another was that they transported 7000 coconut husks in a canoe without a valid movement permit. During the trial the first appellant produced a movement permit alleged to have been issued by the concerned officials. The first accused therein, namely, Jaya Prakash maintained that he obtained the permit from the present 2nd petitioner, namely, P. K. Damodaran. The 2nd petitioner herein was then working as a Coir Project Officer. The Special Judge after analysing the evidence on record came to the conclusion that Ext.D1 document therein, namely the permit produced by the accused, was one cooked up for the purpose of the case and the Court also found that the 2nd petitioner herein was instrument in forging this document. The finding of the trial Court has now been upheld by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 409 of 1984. From the facts and circumstances of the case there is nothing wrong in issuing notice to the 2nd petitioner for taking steps to prosecute him for offences under S. 471 read with Sections 463, 464 and 466 I.P.C. and also for the offence under section 193, I.P.C. 3. The case of the first petitioner namely, J. Gopinathan, stands on a different footing. The coconut husks seized by the Coir Inspector were entrusted with a coir co-operative society of which the first petitioner was the President during the relevant time. During the trial of the case against the accused the first petitioner was examined as PW 2. He deposed that at the time of counting the husks he came across a plastic cover and according to him the plastic cover contained Ext.D1 permit. During the trial of the case against the accused the first petitioner was examined as PW 2. He deposed that at the time of counting the husks he came across a plastic cover and according to him the plastic cover contained Ext.D1 permit. He only attempted to show that Ext.D1 permit alleged to have been issued to accused Jaya Prakash was in fact in existence even at the time when the husks were seized. The evidence in that case only showed that he gave some exaggerated version to help accused Jaya Prakash. That itself is not sufficient to proceed against him for giving false evidence or perjury. It may be that the first petitioner gave some false evidence, but the Court should show some more circumspection in matters like this. Merely because a witness has given some coloured version before Court that does not mean that the witness should be proceeded for giving false evidence. If that be the case the Courts of law would only be flooded with litigations of this nature. The Special Judge has misdirected himself in issuing notice to the first petitioner. Therefore, the notice against the first petitioner is quashed. 4. As already pointed out some prima facie case has been established against the 2nd petitioner and under that circumstance the Court below was justified in issuing notice for prosecution. The proceedings against the 2nd petitioner shall be continued unabated. 5. The Crl.R.P. is disposed of as above. Order accordingly.