Order.- The petitioner before me is a judgment-debtor who, in execution proceedings relating to a decree made against him, produced a receipt which purported to record a payment made by the judgment-debtor to the decree-holder of a certain sum of money due under the decree. The executing Court recorded a finding that the receipt was not genuine and it accordingly made a complaint to the Court of the Magistrate that the judgment-debtor and his witnesses had committed offences punishable under sections 193, 465 and 467 read with sections 34 and 109 of the Penal Code. The judgment-debtor then preferred an appeal to the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore Division, under section 476-B. But that appeal was dismissed on the ground that the appeal was incompetent for the reason that the complaint was really one made under section 479-A of the Code although it was labelled as a complaint made under section 476-B. It is against this order by which the appeal was dismissed in limine that the judgment-debtor has preferred this revision petition. On behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Shamanna appearing for him advanced an argument that it was not permissible for the Court of Session to treat the complaint which was actually presented under section 476-B as one presented under section 479-A. Section 479-A is a new section which was enacted by Central Act XXVI of 1955 prescribing the procedure which should be adopted by the Go art in cases in which false evidence had been given or there was an intention of fabricating false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of the judicial proceeding. That section expressly provides that no appeal shall lie from any finding recorded and complaint made in that way under sub-section (1) of that section. Section 476 of the Code contains a general provision in respect of offences which may appear to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding before any of the Courts referred to in that section, while section 476-A, is a special section containing special provisions with respect to false evidence or fabrication of false evidence at any stage of a judicial proceeding. Since there can be no doubt that the real statutory provision under which the Munsiff could have made a complaint in respect of the false evidence or the fabrication of false evidence of which the judgment-debtor and his witness were accused was only section 479-A of the Code and not section 476, the Court of Session, in my opinion, was right in taking the view that the complaint was in substance and truth one made under section 479-A and not a complaint mads under section 476, notwithstanding the wrong label given to it. In my opinion, the Court of Session was therefore right in rejecting the appeal as incompetent. This revision petition is dismissed. S.V.S. ----- Revision dismissed.