Judgment S. C. MITAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is directed against the judgment dt. 3-12-87 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, No. 1, Udaipur in Cr. Appeal No. 15/86 under Section 341, Cr. P. C. whereby while dismissing the appeal, the order dt. 15-11-1984 passed by learned Authority, Payment of Wages Act, Udaipur was confirmed. The learned Authority, Payment of Wages Act, Udaipur dismissed an application under Section 340, Cr. P. C. filed by the petitioner praying for an inquiry under Section 340, Cr. P. C. for filing a complaint under Sections 209 and 210, I. P. C. against the non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 10. ( 2 ) THE facts may be summarized as under :-NON-PETITIONERS Nos. 2 to 10 were in the employment of the petitioner in the factory at Pratapgarh. According to the petitioner, non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 10 abruptly left the job, with the result, the factory had to stop working for about 6 and a half years. Notwithstanding this, non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 10 filed an application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act before the Authority, Payment of Wages Act, Udaipur in the year 1983 claiming wages for holidays and paid holidays ranging over a period between 4 to 10 years and notice period. Non-petitioners gave their statements on oath to have worked in the petitioners factory in the above 4 to 10 years. This application was false and non-petitioners knew it to be false and they filed the claim dishonestly and fraudulently. The claim of the non-petitioners was passed in their favour for an amount of Rs. 36,275/- along with compensation at the rate of 25 rupee per claim. In this way, the non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 10 obtained a decree or order against the petitioner for a sum not due or in any case a larger claim then due fraudulently and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 209 and 210, I. P. C. Since the offences u/ss. 209, 210 and 193, I. P. C. fell within the bar of Section 195, I. P. C. , no cognizance could be taken except on a complaint in writing to the Court in relation to whose proceedings the offences were committed or by the Court to which that Court was subordinate. Therefore, an application under Section 340, Cr. 209, 210 and 193, I. P. C. fell within the bar of Section 195, I. P. C. , no cognizance could be taken except on a complaint in writing to the Court in relation to whose proceedings the offences were committed or by the Court to which that Court was subordinate. Therefore, an application under Section 340, Cr. P. C. was filed by the petitioner before the learned Authority, Payment of Wages Act, Udaipur to hold an preliminary inquiry, as it may think necessary and to record a finding about the commission of above referred offences and to make a complaint in writing to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and for all necessary action. The non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 10 did not give any specific reply to the petitioners application dt. 16-8-84. The petitioners application was rejected by an order dt. 15-11-84 and the appeal was also dismissed on 3-12-87 as stated above. ( 3 ) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that grounds on which the application has been dismissed are erroneous. The petitioner did not file appeal against the original decree which could have been filed but scope of the appeal would have been only the reliability of the non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 10 claimants evidence and the petitioner could pray that the claim could not be decreed. If the petitioner did not appear in the original proceedings to contest the claim, it does not lead to the inference that the claim passed in favour of the non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 10 was justified. If the petitioner would have contested the claim, the claim would not have been passed in favour of the non-petitioners and in that event the offence under Section 210 would not have been made out. It is further argued that offence under Section 210 is made out only after obtaining the decree by the claimants. Therefore, the petitioners application was wrongly dismissed because the learned lower Courts were labouring under the obsession that the petitioner was seeking to challenge the correctness of the decree through his application. The petitioner did not file any appeal against the decree. Merely on this ground it cannot be held that the proceedings under Section 340, Cr. P. C. cannot be entertained. When the decree obtained by the non-petitioners Nos. The petitioner did not file any appeal against the decree. Merely on this ground it cannot be held that the proceedings under Section 340, Cr. P. C. cannot be entertained. When the decree obtained by the non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 10 became final on account of no appeal by the petitioner even then the proceedings under Section 340, Cr. P. C. are maintainable to see that whether the non-petitioners have committed an offence under Section 210, I. P. C. or not. Therefore, it is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioners application was directed not against the decree but against the non-petitioners No. 2 to 10 for lodging false claim, giving the false evidence to support the claim. The petitioner shall establish against the non-petitioner No. 2 to 10 that the claim was filed dishonestly and it was false and the claimants gave false evidence and obtained a decree for a sum not due. Therefore, the mere existence of the decree is no ground to hold that there is no need of an inquiry into the fraudulently and dishonestly obtaining the decree by the claimants. The petitioner pleaded all necessary facts constituting the above offences in his application, affidavit was also filed which stood uncontroverted by the non-petitioners No. 2 to 10. Therefore, the learned courts below have erred in rejecting the application of the petitioner. ( 4 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the learned Authority, Payment of Wages Act, Udaipur and learned Appellate Court, Addl. Sessions Judge, Udaipur have given concurrent findings giving reasons and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. ( 5 ) I have given my anxious consideration to the contention put forward on behalf of the petitioner. I have also perused the application under S. 340, Cr. P. C. dt. 16-8-84 along with affidavit of Shri Gulam Navi and the reply of non-petitioner No. 8. In its application, the petitioner prayed for an inquiry under S. 340, Cr. P. C. and to institute a complaint against the non-petitioners for the offences under Ss. 209 and 210, IPC. I may state here that the petitioner has not given clear and specific facts which may constitute an act of fraud and dishonest intention by the non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 10. It is simply stated in para 2 of the application that the non-petitioners Nos. 209 and 210, IPC. I may state here that the petitioner has not given clear and specific facts which may constitute an act of fraud and dishonest intention by the non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 10. It is simply stated in para 2 of the application that the non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 10 left the work after May 1992 and the factory was closed. According to the petitioner, this factory worked for 6 and a half years whereas non-petitioners claimed wages from 7 to 14 years. There is no other allegation in the application to prima facie show the fraudulent or dishonest act on the part of non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 10. The offence under Ss. 209 and 210. IPC is made out when a claim is made fraudulently or dishonestly or with intent to injure or annoy any person which one knows to be false. Similarly, the offence under S. 210, IPC is made out when fraudulently a decree or order is obtained against any person for a sum not due or for a larger sum then is due or for any property or interest or property to which one is not entitled or gets the decree executed fraudulently after it has been satisfied. I am of the view, after going through the application of the petitioner that it does not contain facts to show the above ingredients of the offences under Ss. 209 and 210, IPC. Therefore I am unable to agree with the contention that the petitioner had clearly stated the grounds in his application. How many years the factory of the petitioner worked and when it was closed and how many years the non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 10 worked in his factory are of matters relating to fact to be proved by evidence. These facts have been proved by the non-petitioners in their application under S. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act and an order was passed in their favour decreeing their claim. Against that order, no appeal was filed. ( 6 ) IT is true that the offences under Ss. 209 and 210, IPC come into existence only after a decree is obtained fraudulently or dishonestly and if appeal is not filed then by itself this fact does not establish that there could not be fraudulent and dishonest act on the part of the person obtaining the decree. ( 6 ) IT is true that the offences under Ss. 209 and 210, IPC come into existence only after a decree is obtained fraudulently or dishonestly and if appeal is not filed then by itself this fact does not establish that there could not be fraudulent and dishonest act on the part of the person obtaining the decree. Rut it is at the same time a very relevant circumstance to believe that the person obtained the decree on merits particularly when no other specific facts and reasons are shown to prima facie establish the alleged fraudulent and dishonest act. The learned Payment of Wages Authority, after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case has come to the conclusion that commission of an offence under Ss. 209 and 210, IPC is not made out. The learned Appellate Court has considered the fact that petitioner did not file an appeal, the claim of the non-petitioners was decided on the basis of evidence on merits. The petitioner appeared on service of notice but did not file reply even after several adjournments and the claim was passed ex parte on 24-10-83. The ex parte claim was set aside on paying cost of Rs. 15/- to each non-petitioners but petitioner did not pay the cost and the evidence was taken in the case. Again petitioner filed an application for setting aside ex parte proceedings but petitioners counsel did not appear and the application of the petitioner for setting aside ex parte proceedings was dismissed. In these circumstances, learned Appellate Court has held that prima facie it cannot be concluded that non-petitioners filed a false claim or obtained a decree by fraudulent or dishonest means. The petitioner has not given in his application such facts and circumstances as may lead to any prima facie conclusion that an inquiry under S. 340, Cr. P. C. is expedient in the interest of justice. ( 7 ) IN view of the above discussion, I am of the view that the application of the petitioner under S. 340, Cr. P. C. has been rightly dismissed and there is no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of two courts below. ( 8 ) THERE is provision of appeal under S. 341, Cr. P. C. against the order passed under S. 340, Cr. P. C. There is further provision under S. 341 (2), Cr. P. C. has been rightly dismissed and there is no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of two courts below. ( 8 ) THERE is provision of appeal under S. 341, Cr. P. C. against the order passed under S. 340, Cr. P. C. There is further provision under S. 341 (2), Cr. P. C. that an order under this Section i. e. 341, Cr. P. C. shall be final and shall not be subject to revision. Therefore I am of the view that the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur under S. 341, Cr. P. C. in appeal is final and revision is also otherwise not maintainable. However, on merits also I do not find any force in the revision petition. ( 9 ) IN the result, the revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed. .