M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in this criminal petition has prayed for action being initiated by this Court against the respondent in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by him in Writ Petition No. 7310 of 1987 since disposed of, inter alia, on the ground that the respondent therein deliberately, with the intention of misleading the court, affirmed the statement of objections giving false figures as contained in para 6 of the statement of objections filed in the aforementioned writ petition. Para 6 of the statement of objections which is annexed as Annexure-B to the Criminal Petition reads as follows:"in the instant case, the petitioner had produced the DEEC Book for discharge of the export obligation as and when he made exports. However, in respect of 26 such entries made in the DEEC Book, the authorities have noticed that the petitioner had deliberately manipulated the figures with a view to inflate his claim for discharge of the export obligation. It has been noticed that the actual value of the exported goods comes to about Rs. 12 lakhs and odd, and the petitioner had forged the entries by manipulating figures and has claimed discharge for export obligation to the tune of about Rs. 1,20,00,000/- and odd. These manipulations by the petitioner with the advance licence is under investigation. Such action of the petitioner is of serious nature and invites action against the petitioner under clause 8 of the Import Control Order, 1955, particularly under clause 8. The authorities have noticed such glaring abuse of the licence given to the petitioner, and the petitioner having practised fraud and misrepresentation on the authorities, they are investigating further into the matter and action is proposed as contemplated. It is further submitted that in the meanwhile, the respondents have also received communication from the Customs authorities informing that goods of the value of Rupees 17,49,009 exported as per the obligation under the Advance Licence by the petitioner have been returned. The Customs Authorities have enquired to know if these exports were under any obligation or free from such obligation. On verification at the respondent's end, it had been noticed that they are under obligation in respect of the Advance Licence issued to the petitioner. The Customs Authorities have enquired to know if these exports were under any obligation or free from such obligation. On verification at the respondent's end, it had been noticed that they are under obligation in respect of the Advance Licence issued to the petitioner. " ( 2 ) THE averments in support of the prayer in the criminal petition is that subsequent to the disposal of the writ petition, when the petitioner applied for fresh licence for exporting silk goods under the relevant scheme, he was issued with a showcause notice calling upon him to explain certain false claims made by him earlier. That showcause notice is produced as Annexure-C. The relevant portion is found at para 7 of the showcause notice. It reads as follows:"as seen from the statement, you have exported silk articles containing 5727. 36 Kgs. silk and 80,100 Nos. zips only for a total value of Rs. 37,23,059/ -. "in view of the figure mentioned as the total value, the petitioner wants this Court to conclude that the figure of Rs. 12,00,000/- and odd disclosed in the statement of objections filed in the aforementioned writ petition was so stated incorrectly to mislead the Court deliberately in order to obtain favourable orders from this Court, while on their own showing the figure ought to have been Rs. 37,23,059/- and as such the statement of objections affirmed on oath comes within the scope of Section 195 of indian Penal Code. Therefore, the question for me to determine is whether the statement of objections filed by him which is extracted above constitutes an offence punishable under Section 195 of I. P. C. The first requirement to make out a prima facie case is that the complainant must establish the mens rea or guilty knowledge of the person/persons who is/are to mislead the Court in order to get a favourable order prejudicial to the complainant. It must also be established that the Court acted upon that assertion in the statement of objections in order to give or deny the relief to either of the parties. It must also be established that the Court acted upon that assertion in the statement of objections in order to give or deny the relief to either of the parties. It becomes abundantly clear by the illustration Four in Section 195 of I. P. C. The learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner fairly concedes that the assertion in para 6 of the statement of objections filed by the respondent did not fairly and squarely fall within the scope of the illustration or any one of the requirements of Section 195 of I. P. C. If that is so, it is difficult for this Court to conclude that false affidavit was given before the Court knowing that to be false. ( 3 ) EVEN otherwise in the figure or figures mentioned in the course of narration of facts must not be taken in solation and read with the figure given at a subsequent date in the showcause notice in a totally different situation. That fact is not disputed nor is it disputable. If the statement of objections filed by the respondent in the writ petition in substance only means that the writ petitioner made false claim in the matter of value of the garments exported by him. At that point of time, when the statement of objections was filed, perhaps the investigation had revealed the export value of silk garments at about 12 lakhs and odd rupees. But at the middle of para 6, the statement of objection shows that the matter was under investigation. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 12 crores and odd was not final and conclusive. If the showcause notice issued shows a different figure which is 3 times more than the figure disclosed to this Court at the earlier point of time after investigation of all the books relevant for the purpose, it cannot be said that the earlier figure was manipulated in order to suit the claim of the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- and thereby demonstrate the manipulation. In fact, the line of assertion made by the complainant that the value of goods was Rs. 12 lakhs and odd which was claimed to be manipulated to Rs. 1,20,00,000/- is not the correct position which emerges if one reads para 6 of the statement of objections which is extracted in full in the earlier part of this order. In fact, the line of assertion made by the complainant that the value of goods was Rs. 12 lakhs and odd which was claimed to be manipulated to Rs. 1,20,00,000/- is not the correct position which emerges if one reads para 6 of the statement of objections which is extracted in full in the earlier part of this order. ( 4 ) I am satisfied that no case much less a prima facie case is made out for an offence under Section 195 of I. P. C. Therefore, the criminal petition is liable to be rejected in limine. It is so done. --- *** --- .