JUDGMENT - A.B. PALKAR, J.:---The above three Revision Applications are filed by the State of Maharashtra against three different persons and since similar questions of law and facts are involved therein, the same can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment. Respondents in the above three Revisions were accused in the Criminal Cases bearing Nos. 78/83, 79/83 and 80/83 respectively. The precise allegation against the respondents in the said complaints, which were filed by the Income-Tax Officer, was that the Income-Tax Officer raided their premises and a search was conducted and certain articles and documents were seized. According to the complainant, the aforesaid respondents were examined on oath by him under section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act and they have made false statement and as such they are guilty of offence punishable under section 181 as well as 191 r/w. 193 of the I.P.C. 2.In all the three cases, the learned Magistrate passed separate but exhaustive orders and discharged the respondents. The said orders of discharge are impugned in these revision applications. 3.It is alleged by the complainant that the respondents were examined on oath at the time of search. However, in his evidence the complainant has admitted that the statement on oath were recorded before commencement of actual search and the alleged statement were made before the complainant by the respondents under section 132, sub-section (4) of the I.P.C. and under section 132 sub-section (4) of the Indian Income-Tax Act. The complainant was empowered to record such statement on oath and making false statement during such examination on oath by the Income Tax Officer amounts to giving false evidence and as such the respondents have committed offence punishable under sections 191 r/w. 193 I.P.C. as well as under section 181 of the I.P.C. 4.The facts are not very much in dispute. It clearly appears that the answers given to the questions put to the respondents by the Income Tax Officer were not wholly true and there will be no difficulty in coming to that conclusion, but despite coming to such conclusion question that remained to be answered is whether the respondents can be said to have committed the aforesaid offences and whether the learned Magistrate has in no way committed any error or illegality in passing the impugned order of discharge. 5.The learned Magistrate has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court reported in 1986(2) Bom.C.R. page 293, (R.R. Vagit v. Smt. Sherbanoo Hasan Daya another)1. Against this judgment, a S.L.P. was carried to the Supreme Court bearing No. 826 of 1986 and the same was dismissed, as was told at the Bar by the learned Counsel for the respondents. In the case before this Court, the question raised is the same. Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, reads as under : "132(4). The authorised officer may, during the course of the search or seizure, examine on oath any person who is found to be in possession or control of any books of account, documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing and any statement made by such person during such examination may thereafter be used in evidence in any proceeding under the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or under this Act. (Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the examination of any person under this sub-section may be not merely in respect of any books of account, other documents or assets found as a result of the search, but also in respect of all matters relevant for the purposes of any investigation connected with any proceeding under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or under this Act.)" The explanation to sub-section (4) was added by amendment which came into effect on 1-4-1989 and admittedly, the incident in question is of the year 1983. The learned Magistrate has come to the conclusion and in my opinion rightly that the amendment would not operate retrospectively as there is no specific mention that it will have any retrospective effect. I find no reason to differ from the learned Magistrate in his conclusion that the amendment is prospective in nature. 6.In the case of R.R. Vagit (supra), the Court has discussed in detail the provisions of section 132(4) and it is pointed at page 298, as under : "I am of the view that the officer was empowered to examine the accused on oath during the course of search only in the event the accused was found in possession or control of the things mentioned in the section. It is not disputed that her impugned statement was recorded at 6.30 p.m. i.e. before the search commenced. It is not disputed that her impugned statement was recorded at 6.30 p.m. i.e. before the search commenced. Therefore, I am in agreement with Shri Vakil that the complainant was exceeded his authority under the provisions of the said section by putting certain questions to the accused before commencing the search. Moreover this power of examining her on oath could have been exercised by him within the four corners of section 132(4) and not otherwise. To my mind the powers conferred by section 132(4) of Income-tax Act have been misused in the present case. The power to interrogate on oath conferred by section 132(4) is not for the purpose of general investigation of the assets, but for the limited purpose of seeking explanation or information in respect of the documents, articles or things, found during the search. Thus the authorised officer has a limited power to make enquiries on oath in respect of his findings from the search and he is not authorised to put questions in general. Therefore, the impugned statement is not a statement on oath during the proceedings within the meaning of section 132(4) of the Act." The Income Tax Officer has admitted that before commencement of search, he has recorded the statements of the respondents on oath and therefore, the statements are not recorded during the course of search. As held in the aforesaid case, the complainant exceeded his authority under the provisions of the said section by putting questions to the respondents before commencement of search. The power of examining the respondents on oath could have been exercised by him within the four corners of section 132 sub-section (4) of the Act and not otherwise. The power to interrogate on oath is conferred by section 132(4) is not for the purpose of general investigation of the assets, but for the limited purpose of seeking explanation or information in respect of documents, articles, or things found during the search. The offence punishable under section 181 of I.P.C. is also covered inasmuch as it is necessary that the person must be authorised by law to administer oath or affirmation and if oath is so administered, such person is legally bound by such oath or affirmation and if he makes a false statement which he knows or believes to be false then he is liable to be punished. As already pointed out above, the search had admittedly not commenced and therefore, the Income-Tax Officer could not exercise the power of examining the respondent on oath under section 132(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act and as such the respondents have not committed offence either under section 181 of the I.P.C. or under section 191 r/w. 193 I.P.C. and that being so, the learned Magistrate was justified in passing the impugned order for discharge. 7.In this Court an attempt is made by the learned A.P.P. Shri Mhaispurkar to give a different interpretation to section 132(4) of the I.T. Act. However, as part of judicial discipline, I would not like to take a different view than the view which this Court has already taken regarding the interpretation of section 132(4) I.T. Act. Moreover it is also not permissible, because the judgment of this Court has been confirmed by the Supreme Court, and the interpretation given to section 132(4) of the Act has therefore been accepted by the Apex Court. In this view of the matter, the above three Revision Applications are liable to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed and the rule is discharged. 8.Copy of this order be kept on the record of each of the case. Revision application dismissed.