Order.- The Sessions Judge, West Godavari, has made this Reference recommending that the conviction and sentence passed on the sole accused, Gundavarapu Seshamma in C.C. No. 43 of 1960 on the file of the Additional Munsif-Magistrate, Eluru, be set aside, that the accused be acquitted of the offence under section 193, Indian Penal Code, and that the amount of fine of Rs. 25 be refunded to her. The relevant facts are as follows: In S.C. No. 11 of 1960, the Sessions Judge, West Godavari, framed two charges against Valmikula Anjaneyulu, one under section 302, Indian Penal Code, and another under section 309, Indian Penal Code. The prosecution examined, among other witnesses, Seshamma, the sister of the accused, as P.W. 4. She was declared as hostile since, in her deposition in Court, she gave a version which was contradictory to her statement recorded earlier under section 164, Criminal Procedure Code, in material particulars. The Sessions Judge passed judgment on 22nd April, 1960 convicting and sentencing the accused on both the charges. In his judgment, he gave a finding and a direction (hereafter referred to for convenience as an order) that it was a fit case in which Seshamma (P.W. 4) should be prosecuted under section 193, Indian Penal Code, for giving false evidence. In pursuance of this order, a complaint was laid promptly before the Additional District Munsif-Magistrate, Eluru, against Seshamma as the accused. The learned Magistrate took the case (hereafter referred to as a resultant case) on file in C.C. No. 43 of 1960,started trial on 7th May, 1960 and questioned Seshamma (P.W. 4), the accused in that case. The latter admitted the offence and pleaded guilty to the charge. The learned Magistrate passed orders on 7th May, 1960 finding Seshamma guilty of the offence under section 193, Indian Penal Code, and sentencing her to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 25 and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. By that time, no appeal had been filed by the accused in S.C. No. 11 of 1960 against his convictions and sentences. The learned Sessions Judge has stated in his order of reference that Seshamma (P.W. 4) has paid the fine and that she did not prefer any appeal against her conviction and sentence. By that time, no appeal had been filed by the accused in S.C. No. 11 of 1960 against his convictions and sentences. The learned Sessions Judge has stated in his order of reference that Seshamma (P.W. 4) has paid the fine and that she did not prefer any appeal against her conviction and sentence. Subsequently, on 25th May, 1960, the accused in S.C. No. 11 of 1960 (hereafter referred to as the main case) filed an appeal, C.A. No. 320 of 1960 to this Court questioning the convictions and sentences under section 302, Indian Penal Code, and section 309, Indian Penal Code. This appeal was ultimately disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Jaganmohan Reddy, J., and Chandra-sekhara Sastri, J., on 28th November, 1961. In that judgment, the learned Judges confirmed the conviction and sentence under section 302, Indian Penal Code, but set aside the conviction and sentence under section 309, Indian Penal Code, The learned Judges also considered the propriety of the order sanctioning the prosecution of Seshamma and observed as follows: “In the circumstances, we do not consider it expedient to uphold the order of the Sessions Judge directing the prosecution of P.W. 4 under section 193, Indian Penal Code. We accordingly set it aside.” In view of the above finding by the learned Judges, the Sessions Judge has made this Reference in which he has stated as follows: “In view of the order of the High Court in Crl. We accordingly set it aside.” In view of the above finding by the learned Judges, the Sessions Judge has made this Reference in which he has stated as follows: “In view of the order of the High Court in Crl. A. No. 302 of 1960, the complaint filed by the Sessions Court should be deemed to have been withdrawn, but since the case has already been decided and the accused Seshamma pleaded guilty, it is not possible for the trial Court or to the Sessions Court to set aside the conviction and sentence.” The learned Sessions Judge has also stated that in view of the orders of this Court in Crl A No. 302 of 1960 that the prosecution of Seshamma was not expedient, consequential orders will have to be passed acquitting Seshamma of the offence under section 193, Indian Penal Code, Section 479-A(4), Criminal Procedure Code, runs as follows: “Where, in any case, a complaint has been made under sub-section (1) and an appeal has been preferred against the decision arrived at in the judicial proceeding out of which the matter has arisen, the hearing of the case before the Magistrate to whom the case may have been transferred shall be adjourned until such appeal is decided; and the appellate Court, after giving the person, against whom the complaint has been made an opportunity of being heard, may, if it so thinks fit, make an order directing the withdrawal of the complaint; and a copy of such order shall be sent to the Magistrate before whom the hearing of the case is pending”. Under this section, this Court has passed an order directing withdrawal of the complaint It has to be withdrawn if it were possible. But, the resultant case has been disposed of on 7th May, 1960 even long before the decision of this Court on 28th November, 1961 and the complaint is no longer pending. It is not possible for this Court to withdraw the complaint since the stage of withdrawal is long past. An order of withdrawal of complaint can be given effect to in the present or in the future But, it cannot be given effect to retrospectively in a case which has been disposed of already so as to have effect before the case was disposed of. An order of withdrawal of complaint can be given effect to in the present or in the future But, it cannot be given effect to retrospectively in a case which has been disposed of already so as to have effect before the case was disposed of. It is difficult to accept the view of the learned Sessions Judge that the complaint should be deemed to have been withdrawn as it cannot be withdrawn after the case has ended in the conviction of P.W. 4 and as the order of this Court was passed long after the conviction. Hence, the Reference cannot be accepted. Though this Court, as an appellate Court, passed judgment on 28th November, 1961 and passed an order directing withdrawal of the complaint for the prosecution of P.W. 4, it has become impossible to give effect to that judgment and pass an order withdrawing the complaint as contemplated in section 479 (4), Criminal Procedure Code. This is because the resultant case (C.C. No. 43 of 1960) was disposed of even before this Court passed judgment in C.A. No. 320 of 1960. If the latter appeal had been preferred and been pending at the time when C.C. No. 43 of 1960 was being taken up for trial by the Munsif-Magistrate, the latter would have had to adjourn the resultant case (C.C. No. 43 of 1960) until the appeal (C.A. No. 320 of 1960) against S.C. No. 11 of 1960 was decided by this Court. For, such an adjournment is mandatory in view of the provisions in section 479-A (4), Criminal Procedure Code. But, unfortunately, C.C. No. 43 of 1960 was taken up for trial on 7th May, 1960 when no appeal had yet been preferred against the judgment in S.C. No. 11 of 1960 and when there was still time for filing an appeal. Actually, the appeal (C.A. No. 320 of 1960) was filed on 25th May, 1960. Section 479-A (4), Criminal Procedure Code, does not specifically provide that the Magistrate, before whom the complaint was filed, should ascertain whether any appeal has been preferred. In many cases, if an appeal is pending, ordinarily the person being prosecuted would bring that fact to the notice of the Court. Section 479-A (4), Criminal Procedure Code, does not specifically provide that the Magistrate, before whom the complaint was filed, should ascertain whether any appeal has been preferred. In many cases, if an appeal is pending, ordinarily the person being prosecuted would bring that fact to the notice of the Court. But, as the appeal is to be filed by a party in the main case, who may be and often is different from the accused in the resultant case, the latter may not always know whether an appeal has been filed or, if appeal time is not yet over, whether a party aggrieved in the main case intends to or is likely to file an appeal against the judgment in the main case. Therefore, when there is a provision in section 479-A (4), Criminal Procedure Code, that the case shall be adjourned if an appeal had been filed, it appears desirable that a Magistrate, before whom the case is pending, should ascertain not merely by questioning the accused in the resultant case but also otherwise whether an appeal has been preferred or not. If in so ascertaining he finds that no appeal has so far been preferred, it is desirable that he waits till the appeal time is over and does not dispose of the case when there is still a reasonable chance of an appeal being preferred and of the contingency contemplated in section 479-A (4), Criminal Procedure Code, happening and when there is a chance of the case having to be adjourned during the pendency of the appeal after one is filed. This would be a sound practice to be followed by all the Magistrates before whom prosecutions under section 479-A(1), Criminal Procedure Code, are launched. A somewhat, though not exactly, similar procedure is provided for in the Criminal Procedure Code in section 517(3) which runs as follows: "When an order is made under this section such order shall not, except where the property is livestock or subject to speedy and natural decay, and save as provided by sub-section (4) be carried out for one month, or, when an appeal is presented, until such appeal has been disponed of." This provision is meant to ensure that the articles concerned in the case would be available for being subjected to the orders which may be made by the appellate Court when disposing of the appeal. In that case, a provision of one month is provided for, in addition to the other provision of the period upto the disposal of a presented appeal, as a measure of caution and prudence obviously to provide for the trial Court waiting for a reasonable time, though it may not exactly be the appeal time, for an appeal being filed or other steps being taken by the party aggrieved by the order. In practice, an order passed under section 517, Criminal Procedure Code, by a trial Court in the ordinary course, excluding cases where property is subject of an extraordinary nature like livestock, etc., mentions that the order should not be given effect to until the appeal or revision, if filed, is disposed of or until time for appeal or revision is over. An example of provision made by the statute itself to see that punitive action is not taken against a person before an appeal or revision is filed is found in the Proviso to section 4(1) of the Hyderabad Money-lenders Act (Act V of 1349 Fasli) which runs as follows: "4. (1) Where it is found in respect of a money-lender that after the commencement of this Act-(d) he has been found guilty in a money transaction by a Court of forgery, cheating or coercion within the meaning of section 15 of the Contract Act No. VI of 1316 Fash............the Taluqdar may cancel the licence or suspend it for any term, or prohibit the renewal thereof for a period not exceeding two years: Provided that the Taluqdar shall not pass such order until the expiry of the period for appeal or revision or review and in case an appeal or revision or review has been filed until appeal, revision or review has been disposed of." The above provision relates to punitive action. Another example of provision in the statute for waiting till appeal time being over is found in section 42(1) of the Hyderabad Jagirdars Debt Settlement Act (No. XXI of 1952) which reads: "42. Another example of provision in the statute for waiting till appeal time being over is found in section 42(1) of the Hyderabad Jagirdars Debt Settlement Act (No. XXI of 1952) which reads: "42. (1) Every award made under this Act shall, on payment of the Court-fee payable under section 49, be registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, after the expiry of the period provided for an appeal, if an appeal is allowed but no appeal is filed and after the disposal of the appeal if an appeal is filed." Under this provision, the action contemplated is only registration. It is desirable that a practice on the above lines is adopted under section 479-A, Criminal Procedure Code, also in order to prevent any recurrence of a case like the present one, namely, of an order of the appellate Court becoming incapable of being given effect to and a person in whose favour the appellate Court passed an order, not being able to get the benefit of that order due to the resultant case against that person having been disposed of within appeal time before the appeal was filed and, therefore, even before the appellate Court passed the order. It would be a measure of safety if the complaining Court (i) does not give effect to the order of sending a complaint until an appeal is filed; or (ii) if the appeal time is over, without any appeal being filed, makes mention in the complaint that no appeal has been filed although appeal time is over; or (iii) sends a complaint promptly with a request to the hearing Court not to start trial of the case until it hears from the complaining Court further as to whether an appeal has been filed or whether appeal time is over without an appeal being filed. The reference is rejected. K.N.R. ----- Reference rejected.