Order.- This revision petition is against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge of Kozhikode, directing the withdrawal of the complaint proposed to have been filed against the petitioner under section 476-Bof the Code of Criminal Procedure in that a false affidavit was filed by him before the Munsiff of Badagara in O.S. No. 100 of 1952 pending execution on the file of his Court. The landlord filed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent due from the defendant. The contention of the defendant in that suit was that he was entitled to reduction of rent under section 73 of the Act (I of 1964). The landlord stated that he defendant is not entitled to the protection under section 73, since he was an intermediary during the period in question. Arrears were claimed by the landlord for the year 1125-27. During that period, (he contention of the landlord was that the defendant was collecting full rent from his tenant in the capacity of an intermediary. But the defendant stated that he was in fact directly cultivating the lend and that nobody other than himself was carrying on the cultivation. Exhibit C-1 is the counter affidavit filed by the defendant claiming that during the relevant period., he was himself cultivating the land. That was opposed by the landlord, stating that the land was cultivated by the tenant under the defendant. The defendant was called up:n to produce the receipts issued by him. In Exhibit C-1 affidavit, it was stated by the defendant that he was not in possession of the counter-foils. But as a matter of fact, the counterfoils were produced by the landlord which were made available to him by the tenant who was actually cultivating the land under the defendant and there upon the Court found that the statement made by the defendant in Exhibit C-1 affidavit was false. In this circumstance, prosecution was ordered by the Munsiff under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In appeal before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode, the learned Additional Sessions Judge who heard the appeal found that the affiadavit was not intended to be an item of evidence in the case and so no offence under section 103 was made out. In this circumstance, prosecution was ordered by the Munsiff under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In appeal before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode, the learned Additional Sessions Judge who heard the appeal found that the affiadavit was not intended to be an item of evidence in the case and so no offence under section 103 was made out. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that once an affidavits filed in the Court, it is not open to the party to contend that the affidavit was not intended to be treated as evidence, end it was filed only by way of an objection to the affidavit filed by the landlord. The following observation made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is pertinent in this connection: “Therefore, though the contents might be false and some other offence might have been made out if the falsity is proved, no offence under section 193 has been made out.” This view cannot be sustained. When once the contents of the affidavit are proved to be false, a case might lie under section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. But the prosecution must fail on another ground viz., anaction of this nature cannot be initiated under section 476 of the Code. The proper section under which the action could be sustained is section 479-A of the Code. This point is covered by a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Baban Singh v. Jagdish Singh1. The learned Judges observed in that case: “Section 479-A lays down a special procedure which applies to persons who appear as witnesses before civil, revenue or criminal Courts and do one of two things: (i) intentionally give false evidence in any stage of the judicial proceeding, or (ii) intentionally fabricate false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of the judicial proceeding. The first refers to an offence under section 191/193 and the second to that under section 192/193 of the Indian Penal Code. In respect of such offences when committed by a witness, action under section 497-A alone can be taken.” The learned Counsel pointed out also that in the present case the affidavit in question was filed by the defendant who is a party to the suit and not in his capacity as a witness. In respect of such offences when committed by a witness, action under section 497-A alone can be taken.” The learned Counsel pointed out also that in the present case the affidavit in question was filed by the defendant who is a party to the suit and not in his capacity as a witness. This contention is also not available in view of the observation in the same judgment, that a party when he files the affidavit, assumes the character of a witness. He is therefore treated as a witness in the case. So, on the above reasoning the proceeding has to be quashed. The petition in the circumstances is groundless and it is dismissed. M.C.M.----- Petition dismissed.