JUDGMENT This is a revision filed by the sole accused who is a Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station Jaisi Nagar, district Sagar, aggrieved by the framing of charge for the offence under section 194 I.P.C. The facts leading to the filing of the revision arc briefly as follows: On 11.3.1990 at about 6.30 p.m. one Hukum, son of Gulab, came to the Police Station and lodged Ex. P-2 report complaining of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on the same day in village Kharmhow. Basing on that statement the applicant started investigation and recorded the statement of his mother Rajbai. As a result of the investigation made by the applicant, the accused were charged for offences under sections 302, read with section 34 and 323 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge, Sagar while acquitting the accused basing on certain contradictions elicited from the evidence of PW 2 and his father and also coming to the conclusion that Ex. P-11 statement given by Rajbai, is false, however, ordered prosecution against the applicant under section 194 I.P.C. Challenging the framing of charge against the applicant this revision is filed. The learned counsel for the applicant relying upon the admissions contained in paragraph 4 of the cross-examination of PW 2 that he is the author of Ex. P-2 statement and also his further statement that his mother was brought to the Police Station and the Sub-Inspector has questioned her and recorded the statement, argued that in the light of those admissions contained in the statement of PW 2, there is no prima facie material to show that the applicant has either given or fabricated false evidence with intention to procure conviction of the accused. Section 194 IPC renders a person liable for giving or fabricating false evidence intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, any person to be convicted of an offence which is capital in nature. When PW 2 has admitted the contents of Ex. P-2 and also further stated in his examination in-chief that his mother was brought to the police station and that the Investigating Officer has questioned her and recorded her statement, even assuming that Ex. P-2 and Ex. When PW 2 has admitted the contents of Ex. P-2 and also further stated in his examination in-chief that his mother was brought to the police station and that the Investigating Officer has questioned her and recorded her statement, even assuming that Ex. P-2 and Ex. P-l1 are false statement, it cannot be said that the alleged giving or fabricating false statements; can be attributed to the applicant who has merely recorded the statements of PW 2 and his mother Rajbai. I, therefore, hold that framing of charge against the applicant for the offence under section 194 I.P.C. is not called for. The revision is accordingly allowed setting aside the charges framed against the applicant.