Judgment M. C. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under S. 341, Cr. P. C. against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara dated 31/08/1992 by which he has directed that a complaint under S. 193, I. P. C. be filed against the witness-appellant Dr. Jagdish Prasad Singhal in the competent Court. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus. ( 2 ) IN Criminal case No. 768 / 83 - State v. Kishanlal and Dilip Nagar under S. 16 read with S. 7, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara, the appellant appeared as a prosecution witness and his statement was recorded. The accused were convicted. They filed an appeal in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara. While deciding the appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara Shri Budhmal Bhojak, held that the appellant has given false statement and directed that a notice be issued to him to show cause as to why a complaint under S. 193, I. P. C. be not filed against him. In compliance thereof, notice was issued to the appellant. After hearing him, the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara directed that a complaint be filed against him under S. 193, I. P. C. by his order dated 31/08/1992 which is under challenge in this appeal. ( 3 ) IT has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the notice issued to the appellant was no notice in the eye of law as it did not specify the portions which were found false and on this ground alone the impugned order deserves to be quashed. He relied upon S. P. Kohli v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana, AIR 1978 SC 1753 : (1978 Cri LJ 1804 ). He further contended that appellants statement was recorded about 10 years ago and as such it would not be expedient in the interest of justice to remand the case for deciding it afresh after giving proper notice to him. 3a. The learned P. P. duly supported the order under challenge. ( 4 ) THE notice issued to the appellant was as follows : 4a. It has been observed in S. P. Kohli v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana, AIR 1978 SC 1753 para 19, as follows :"the notice besides being not happily worded is laconic. 3a. The learned P. P. duly supported the order under challenge. ( 4 ) THE notice issued to the appellant was as follows : 4a. It has been observed in S. P. Kohli v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana, AIR 1978 SC 1753 para 19, as follows :"the notice besides being not happily worded is laconic. It does not satisfy the essential requirements of law. Nor does it specify the offending portions in the appellants lengthy statement which in the opinion of the High Court were false. In cases of this nature, it is highly desirable and indeed very necessary that the portions of the witnesss statement in regard to which he has, in the opinion of the Court, perjured himself, should be specifically set out in or for annexure to the notice issued to the accused so that he is in a position to furnish an adequate and proper reply in regard thereto and be able to meet the charge. " ( 5 ) IT is clear from the above-quoted notice that the portions f the appellants statement in regard to which he has, in the opinion of the learned Sessions Judge, perjured himself had not at all been set out in it. If the notice would have mentioned the false portions of the statement, the appellant would have given an effective answer to them. On account of this material omissin in the notice, he was greatly prejudiced. As such it is difficult to sustain the impugned order. ( 6 ) NOW the question is whether the case should be remanded to the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara for giving fresh notice as required under law or the matter should be closed. Admittedly, the statement of the appellant was recorded in October, 1983 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara. According to the other prosecution witnesses and recovery memo, accused Kishanlal and Dilip Nagar were present in the shop when the sample was taken by the Food Inspector. In his statement, the appellant disclosed the presence of one accused only. It is not mentioned in the impugned order that during his statement the appellant was confronted with the recovery memo which had his signature. In his reply to the said notice, the appellant disclosed that it was his first chance in his life to appear as a witness in any Court of law. It is not mentioned in the impugned order that during his statement the appellant was confronted with the recovery memo which had his signature. In his reply to the said notice, the appellant disclosed that it was his first chance in his life to appear as a witness in any Court of law. Under these facts and circumstances, it would not be expedient in the interest of justice to remand the case for passing fresh order after issuing proper notice. It has been observed in Chhajju Ram v. Radhey Shyam, AIR 1971 SC 1367 para 7 (last portion), as follows :"lastly, there is also the question of long lapse of time of more than ten years since the filing of the charge. This factor is also not wholly irrelevant for considering the question of expediency of initiating prosecution for the alleged perjury. In view of the nature of the alleged perjury in this case this long delay also militates against the expediency of prosecution. And then by reason of the pendency of these proceedings since 1962 and earlier similar proceedings before the District Magistrate also the appellant must have suffered both mentally and financially. In view of all these circumstances we are constrained to allow the appeal and set aside the order directing complaint to be filed. " ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara dated 31/08/1992 is set aside. The proceedings taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara in Criminal Case No. 735/92- State v. Dr. Jagdish Prasad Singhal commenced on the complaint filed in pursuance of the impugned order are quashed. ( 8 ) COPY of this order will be sent to both the aforesaid Courts. Appeal allowed.