JUDGMENT 1. - These two Misc. Petitions under section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be decided together as the point involved similar in both of them. The only difference is that S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 309/96 has been filed by Banwarilal while S.B. Cr.Misc. Petition No. 307/96 has been filed by Banwarilal and Prithvi Singh. 2. Facts of Cr.Misc. Petition No. 309/96 are that FIR No. 3/87 was registered at police station Rajgarh for offences under sections 447, 379 IPC. After investigation challan was submitted. Banwarilal appeared as a witness. Accused persons were acquitted but witness Banwarilal was ordered to be prosecuted for offence under section 193 IPC. It was observed in the judgment dated 21.7.1994 that he had given false statement. The complaint was filed and the accused-petitioner was summoned. He has challenged this prosecution. 3. Facts of Cr.Misc. Petition No. 307/96 are that FIR No. 4/87 was registered at police station Rajgarh for offences under sections 447, 379 IPC. Police after investigation, submitted challan. Both the petitioners were witnesses in the case. After trial the accused persons were acquitted. The trial Court held that these persons had given false statements as they had not supported the statements given under section 161 Cr.P.C. On the basis of this finding a complaint by the Court concerned has been filed for offence under section 193 Cr.P.C. The petitioners have challenged their prosecution. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in both the cases submitted that the petitioners in two cases appeared as witnesses. Their statements were recorded by the police under section 161 Cr.P.C. during investigation and it is alleged that they did not support the case of prosecution, hence they are prosecuted. 6. FIR No. 3/87 related to cutting and removing of green trees from pasture land bearing khasra No. 152. There was no eye-witness nor any recovery was made. Prithvi Singh was the patwari. During his statement when the Court questioned him he stated that the report was lodged on the basis of the fact that the villagers had named Hansram. The trial Court was of the view that this witness should have verified the fact from other sources and since it was not done he had made a false statement before the Court. 7. The trial Court was of the view that this witness should have verified the fact from other sources and since it was not done he had made a false statement before the Court. 7. So far as FIR No. 4/87 is concerned, it also related to cutting and removing of green trees from pasture land bearing khasra No. 152. It were Banwarilal and Prithvi Singh who appeared as witnesses in this case. So far as Banwarilal is concerned, learned Magistrate observed the same as he has observed in case relating to FIR No. 3/87. But so far as Prithvi Singh is concerned, the witness had stated in the cross-examination that he did not see Ran Singh cutting or removing the trees and it was on the basis of saying of other persons that he could state that it was Ran Singh who had cut and removed the trees. Banwarilal PW 3 had stated that when he enquired the names of persons who had removed the trees could not come out. Banwarilal was declared hostile by prosecution and was contradicted with his previous statement. 8. Learned counsel submitted that the prosecution launched by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in both the cases should be quashed as it is an abuse of process of Court. Learned Public Prosecutor has tried to support the prosecution. 9. It is well settled that in case a witness is contradicted with his previous statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. and there is no other material on record, proceedings should not be initiated to prosecute him for offence under section 193 IPC. Janardhanan v. State of Kerala, 1979 Cr.L.J. NOC page 96 , is available on this point. When a party declares his own witness hostile, the Court has to assess his evidence as any other witnesses' evidence and thereupon the Court may accept it in whole or in part. But it does not mean that when a witness is not supporting his previous statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., he is telling a lie. Therefore, in these cases when Banwarilal was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the prosecution itself, it would not mean that he has given false evidence. 10. So far as Prithvi Singh is concerned, he did not say even in examination in chief that he saw Hansram cutting and removing the trees. Therefore, in these cases when Banwarilal was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the prosecution itself, it would not mean that he has given false evidence. 10. So far as Prithvi Singh is concerned, he did not say even in examination in chief that he saw Hansram cutting and removing the trees. He did state in the cross-examination that he did not see Hansram cutting and removing the trees. He had named Hansram on the basis of what the villagers told him. Prosecution was not able to produce any villager who might have seen Hansram cutting and removing the trees. It appears that the learned Magistrate was swayed to take action and prosecute the petitioners as they were the State Government employees working under the Revenue Department. The witnesses did not know as to who had cut and removed the trees and the FIR was lodged on the basis of fact that 15 green trees were not found standing at their respective places. It were the villagers who had told the names of the persons against whom cases were registered for offences under sections 379 & 447 IPC. In view of what has been stated above the prosecution of the petitioners under section 193 IPC amounts to abuse of process of the Court. 11. Consequently, both the petitions under section 482 Cr.P.C. are allowed and the prosecutions in both the cases are quashed.Petition allowed. *******