B. L. YADAV, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application under section 340 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (for short the Code) on behalf of Smt. Khatoon Jannat Bibi, the respondent No. 2 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4109 of 1985, Syed Asadullah Kazmi v. Additional Distt Magistrate D. D. C. Allahabad, (for short the petition) for recording a finding that it is expedient in the interest of Justice that an enquiry be made against the petitioner as he has committed the offence under section 209/ 192/ 196/ 193/ 199 IPC by filing false affidavit and concealing material facts in the petition. ( 2 ) FACTS of the case so far as they are material lie in a narrow compass and they are these. The petition was filed against order dated 20-3-85 passed by Additional Collector! Dy. Director of Consolidation Allahabad rejecting an application dated 16-3-85 (Annexure 1 to the petition) filed by petitioner alleging therein that Sri L. B. Tewari was appointed as Additional Collector of the Allahabad District by the State Government to exercise the powers of the Additional Collector as provided under the U. P. Land Revenue Act 1901 and has nothing to do with the exercise of powers and duties of the Director or Deputy Director of Consolidation in view of the provisions of section 48 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act ). In para 8 of the petition it was averred that the Deputy Director of Consolidation means a person who is for the time being Collector of the District, in para 12 it was averred that in view of section 2 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Amendment Act, the Collector of a District acting as Director of the Consolidation is a persons designata and such power cannot be delegated to the Additional Collector. The petition came up for admission before me. Shri N. P. Misra, the then Chief Standing Counsel, was directed to file a counter affidavit indicating as, to whether Sri L. B. Tiwari, Additional TCollector Allahabad has been conferred the power of Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide revisions under section 48 of the Act. Counter affidavit was filed but on 23-4-85 Sri S. N. Singh Advocate made a statement on behalf of Km. Counter affidavit was filed but on 23-4-85 Sri S. N. Singh Advocate made a statement on behalf of Km. Sadhana Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner that he does not want to press the writ petition and the petition was dismissed as not pressed. After dismissal of the petition, the present application has been filed by respondent No. 2. ( 3 ) ARGUMENTS were advanced at considerable length on behalf of both the parties and after hearing counsel for the parties, first point for determination is as to whether the petitioner has committed an offence under sections 192/193/196/199/209 IPC by filing false affidavit regarding powers conferred on Sri L. B. Tiwari, Additional Collector Allahabad and the next point is that is it expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made as provided under section 340 (1) of the Code. ( 4 ) AS regards the first point a bare perusal of the writ petition would make it manifest that under para 7 of the petition it was stated that in the impugned order Additional Collector has held that he has jurisdiction to dispose of the revision under section 48 of the Act. Section 14-A of the U. P. Land Revenue Act defines the powers of Additional Collector. Under para 8 of the petition it was averred that by Section 2 of Act, Distt. Deputy Director of Consolidation means the person who was for the time being Collector of the District. Under para 10 it was averred that except Chapters 9 and 10 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act no other provision was applicable to the provisions of the Act. Under para 11 it was averred that Additional Collector committed manifest error of law apparent on the face of record in taking aid of section 14 and 14-A of D. P. Land Revenue Act which were not applicable to the Act. Under para 12 it was stated that the Collector -of the District acting as Distt. Deputy Director of Consolidation was a persona designata and such power cannot be delegated to the Additional Collector. Except these allegations there was no material and positive averment made in the petition. The basis of these allegations was not the affidavit filed by the petitioner, rather the basis was the application dated 16-3-85 (Annexure 1 to the petition) filed by the petitioner before Additional Collector. Except these allegations there was no material and positive averment made in the petition. The basis of these allegations was not the affidavit filed by the petitioner, rather the basis was the application dated 16-3-85 (Annexure 1 to the petition) filed by the petitioner before Additional Collector. Since this application dated 16-3-85 was filed by the petitioner himself before the Additional Collector hence these allegations made, were sworn in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, to be true to personal knowledge. Under the circumstances when the authority of Additional Collector to decide revision under section 48 of the Act was challenged, there was no other way to challenge the same, except by making the allegations in the form, the petitioner had made. Before a Court of law a very comprehensive view has to be taken in respect of such matters. The Court has to keep judicial restraint and constraint in deciding these matters particularly when the offence has been enumerated as offence against public justice under section 195 (1) (b) (i) of the Code. ( 5 ) IN the present application, offence under sections 209/192/196 and 193/199 IPC is alleged to have been committed. Section 209 IPC is in respect of an offence pertaining to false claim in a Court of justice and is punishable by 2 years imprisonment and fine. Section 192 is not traceable under section 195 (1) (b) (i) of the Code hence it is irrelevant. Section 196 provides an offence in respect of using in a judicial proceedings, an evidence, known to be false or fabricated. Section 193 indicates an offence in respect of giving or fabricating false evidence in a judicial proceeding. Section 199 enacts an offence in respect of false statement made in a Court. Offences enumerated under section 195 (1) (b) (i) of the Code are offences in respect of which procedure has been provided under Chapter XXVI (twenty six) of the Code. The offences under these sections have first to be made out before complaint could be filed and finding could be recorded. In the present case after perusing the affidavit, the petition and the application under section 340 of the Code, affidavit filed in support thereof of and counter affidavit etc. The offences under these sections have first to be made out before complaint could be filed and finding could be recorded. In the present case after perusing the affidavit, the petition and the application under section 340 of the Code, affidavit filed in support thereof of and counter affidavit etc. I am satisfied that no offence as mentioned above has been committed by making averments stated above in different paragraphs of the petition to challenge the authority of the Additional Collector to hear revision under section 48 of the Act. It is not out of place to mention here that every litigant has got a legal right to challenge the jurisdiction of any Court, which can pass an order in his case provided it is tenable but usually in such cases the allegations are made sometimes well founded. ( 6 ) IN the counter affidavit filed by Sri H. C. Srivastava Reader in the Court of Additional District Magistrate, Allahabad Government notification dated 26-5-58 was referred indicating that all the Additional Collectors of the District, where consolidation proceedings are in operation, were madeex-officio Deputy Directors of Consolidation within their respective jurisdiction. There is no denying the fact that this notification was made, but this argument, was still open to the petitioner, may be not well founded, that the Collector acting as Distt. Deputy Director of Consolidation was a persona designata and that power could not be delegated to the Additional Collector. Under these circumstances it cannot be said that the offences as pointed out under section 195 (1) (b) (i) of the Code have been committed. ( 7 ) NOW reverting to the next point as to whether it was expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be directed to be made as provided under section 340 of the Code. In this connection it is pertinent to mention that Section 340, providing procedure in respect of offences enumerated under section 195 (1) (b) (i) of the Code, occur under Chapter XXVI (twenty sixth ). Sections 340 and 195 are closely connected and in order to have a harmonious construction they should be read together. Section 195 starts with the words No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 of the Indian Penal Code except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned. Sections 340 and 195 are closely connected and in order to have a harmonious construction they should be read together. Section 195 starts with the words No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 of the Indian Penal Code except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned. Whereas Section 195 (1) (b) farbids the cognizance by any Court and the offence against public justice except on a complaint in writing of that Court. Section 340 however, enacts the procedure for the same and provides as to how the complaint is to be filed. This section deals with the cases mentioned under section 195 (1) (b) and it has nothing to do with the offences under section 195 (1) (a ). Sections 340, 149, 150 (a) (b) are supplementary to each other. I am of the view that it was better if Section 340 could have been placed by the Parliament, immediately after Section 1 95 (2) (b ). ( 8 ) SECTION 195 (1) (a) is not concerned with the Courts rather it deals with the contempt of lawful authority of public servant hence it is outside the purview of Section 340 of the Code. In view of the procedure under section 340 the Court may take action suo moto or otherwise or on the application made by a person provided it is of the opinion that it was expedient in the interest of justice to do so. In that event the Court may make complaint in writing or otherwise but the power of the Court under section 340 is confined with the provision that the Court is of the opinion that it was expedient in the interest of justice to do so. It is worth mention that the power under section 340 is not absolute one. The enquiry can be made or the complaint can be directed to be filed only when the Court comes to the conclusion that it was expedient in the interest of justice to do so. It is worth mention that the power under section 340 is not absolute one. The enquiry can be made or the complaint can be directed to be filed only when the Court comes to the conclusion that it was expedient in the interest of justice to do so. There may be a case where false affidavit might have been filed or offence under section 195 (1) (b) might appear to have been committed, but nevertheless, unless it is expedient in the interest of justice, in the opinion of the Court that an enquiry should be made or a complaint should be directed to be filed, same cannot be done. ( 9 ) IT is convenient to have some elementary principles of interpretation of statutes. Elementary rule is that statutes must be read as a whole. But while a particular section is to be interpreted different parts of the said section must be read as a whole. The interpretation must be textual and contextual both. Further interpretation of a statute must be made to safeguard the spirit in which it has been enacted, with an anxiety to ensure that it is going to fulfill its life-aim. ( 10 ) APPLYING these elementary rules of interpretation to the provisions of Section 340 of the Code, it is evident that the legislature has couched the provision in such a language that the courts discretion is circumscribed by the words used. The Court has to consider and weigh the balance of situation to ascertain as to whether in a given case is it expedientt in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made. As an inescapable corollary, in case it is not expedient, under the circumstances, enquiry must not be made. The Legislature has deliberately used the word expedient which is Adjective according to grammer. This obviously commodes suitable or advisable. This word is also used as noun and means that which serves to promote or is a suitable to an end. The word expediency also means desirableness. The power of the Court in directing an enquiry to be made or a complaint to be filed in view of the provisions of Section 340 as limited with a condition that it should appear to the Court to be expedient in the interest of justice to do so. The word expediency also means desirableness. The power of the Court in directing an enquiry to be made or a complaint to be filed in view of the provisions of Section 340 as limited with a condition that it should appear to the Court to be expedient in the interest of justice to do so. To put it differently, it is only in glaring cases of deliberate falsehood when the Court can direct an enquiry to be made or complaint to be filed but this discretion has to be exercised judicially in the light of all the relevant circumstances. Section 340 of the Code is not with a view to satisfy personal feelings of vindictiveness. The Court has to be satisfied about the deliberate falsehood as a matter of substance and there must be a reasonable foundation for the charge and it must be expedient in the interest of justice. It is better to refer an observation made by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in (Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain and another), which is as follows: In any event, considering the entire statement of the appellant it is not understood how it can be considered expedient in the interest of justice to direct the appellants prosecution. Every incorrect or false statement does not make it incumbent on the court to order prosecution. The Court has to exercise judicial discretion in the light of all the relevant circumstances when it determines the question of expediency. The Court orders prosecution in the larger interest of the administration of justice and not to gratify feelings of personal revenge or vindictiveness or to serve the ends of a private party. Too frequent prosecutions for such offences tend to defeat its very object. It is only in glaring cases of deliberate falsehood where conviction is highly likely, that the court should direct prosecution. The High Court seems to have misunderstood the appellants evidence and has also failed to apply its mind to the question of expediency. On behalf of the applicant reliance was placed on M. Veerabhadra Rao v. Tek Chand4 and Pushpadevi M. Jatia v. M. L. Wadhavan, Addi. Secretary Govt. of India and others5. The High Court seems to have misunderstood the appellants evidence and has also failed to apply its mind to the question of expediency. On behalf of the applicant reliance was placed on M. Veerabhadra Rao v. Tek Chand4 and Pushpadevi M. Jatia v. M. L. Wadhavan, Addi. Secretary Govt. of India and others5. As regards M. Veera Madra Rao v. Tek Chand (supra) it was a case where concerned advocate was prosecuted under the Advocates Act 1961 for misconduct and he was given punishment or reprimand as he has attested a forged affidavit causing wrongful loss to the respondent and on the basis of which false document was created and income tax clearance certificate was obtained and it facilitated the registration of the sale deed for which sale consideration was not paid. It was wholly unbecoming to the members of noble profession. The concerned advocate was held guilty of gross professional misconduct and his suspension from practice for five years was ordered. I am of the View that, that case is clearly different from the present case in as much as no wrongful loss has been caused to the present applicant namely Smt. Khatoon Jannat Bibi. Such averments by the petitioner Sri Kazmi, that the Court has no jurisdiction or that the Additional Collector was not conferred with the power of Deputy Director Consolidation to decide a revision under section 48 or to decide a particular claim is but usual before a Court of Law. Further in the writ petition out of which present application arose, no positive averments Were made that the Additional Collector was not conferred with the powers of Deputy Director of Consolidation, even though that could have been made part of the argument. As such that case is of no assistance. As regards Pushpadevi M. Jatia v. M. L. Wadhavan Addi. Secretary Government of India and others (supra) it was a case where febrication of false evidence was made in respect of representation made on behalf of Detenue by forged entry in the Dak Register at the Presidents Secretariate. In that case investigation by D. B. I. was already ordered and the court directed that unless the investigation by D. B. I. is completed no direction can be made. In the present case no such febrication of false evidence has been made and the facts of the present case are distinguishable. In that case investigation by D. B. I. was already ordered and the court directed that unless the investigation by D. B. I. is completed no direction can be made. In the present case no such febrication of false evidence has been made and the facts of the present case are distinguishable. ( 11 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussions and reading Section 340 read with section 195 of the Code I am of the view that the present case is not a case of forgery or false affidavits under the facts and circumstances, which should form basis of au enquiry. Further it cannot be said that if there is a case disclosing an offence under section 195 (1) (b) of the Code, such enquiry becomes mandatory. It is always discretionary depending upon facts and circumstances of the particular, case. It is only when it appears expedient in the interest of justice, in the opinion of the court, to direct an enquiry to be made or complaint to be filed, in that event enquiry can be ordered to be made or complaint can be directed to be filed. Keeping in view entire facts and circumstances of present case I am of the view that it is not expedient in the interest of justice to direct prosecution of the petitioner for filing false affidavit or concealment of material fact and no offence as alleged in the application in question has been made out against Sri Syed Asadullah Kazmi, petitioner in writ petition No. 4109 of 1985. In view of the discussions made herein before the present application is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. .