JUDGMENT The Order of the Bench was made by A.D.V. Reddy, J.- The point of law that falls for determination in this revision referred to the Division Bench is whether for filing of the complaints for offences relating to giving or fabricating false evidence in judicial proceedings, it is the procedure prescribed under section 476 Criminal Procedure Code or one under section 479-A Criminal Procedure Code that should be followed. The distinction is material and important, as under section 476 Criminal Procedure Code a complaint can be laid by the Court either suo motu or on an application made by a party after the proceedings in which the alleged false evidence had terminated, whereas under section 479-A Criminal Procedure Code if the Court thinks that it is expedient in the interests of justice that the witness has given false evidence or has intentionally fabricated false evidence in the said proceedings and should be prosecuted for the said offence which appears to have been committed by him, the Court at the time of the delivery of judgment or final order disposing of such proceedings should record a finding to that effect stating its reasons therefor and may, if it so thinks fit, after giving the witness an opportunity of being heard, make a complaint thereof in writing signed by the presiding officer of the Court setting forth the evidence, which in the opinion of the Court, is false or fabricated and forward the same to the Magistrate of the First Class having jurisdiction. If no such procedure had been adopted, sub-clause (6) of the same section places an embargo on action being taken otherwise, as it says that no proceedings shall be taken under sections 476 to 479 inclusive for the prosecution of a person for giving or fabricating false evidence, if in respect of such a person proceedings may be taken under this section. The facts that have given rise to this controversy in the present case are as follows: In M.C.No. 6 of 1965 on the file of District Munsif-Magistrate, Peddapuram, proceedings under section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the question that had to be decided was with regard to possession of certain land (two acres on the northern side of old S.No. 101/1 and present S. No. 95/2-B). The petitioner claimed that he was in possession of the said land, whereas respondents 4 and 5 (who are father and son) claimed on the other hand that they were in possession. In support of their respective contentions, affidavits were filed in the Court. One of the affidavits filed supporting the claim of respondents 4 and 5 was that of karnam, a village officer. The Magistrate chose to rely on the affidavits filed on behalf of the petitioner and rejected the affidavits filed on behalf of respondents 4 and 5 including that of the karnam and held that the petitioner was in possession. The petitioner thereafter filed M.P.No. 279 of 1965 alleging that the karnam who had now given an affidavit in support of the claim of possession of respondents 4 and 5, had given an affidavit in E.A.No. 857 of 1959 in O.S. of 1948 on the file of the Sub-Court, Kakinada, wherein he had stated that the land was in exclusive possess: on of one Koka Chiranjeevammagaru till 1950 and in the exclusive possession of Sri Mallad Satyalingam Naicker thereafter till the affidavit was given which support the claim of the petitioner. Added to this, it is alleged that the Karnam himself was passing cist receipts to the petitioner for payment of cist for the disputed lands. From these it was contended that the affidavit given in section 145 Criminal Procedure Code proceedings by him was false and this constituted an offence under section 199. Indian Penal Code and the 2nd respondent who was the opposite party claiming possession had committed an offence under section 200 Indian Penal Code as much as he has used the false affidavit knowing the same to be false, a complaint in this behalf should be filed by the Court as per the provisions of section 476 Criminal Procedure Code. The karnam who is the 1st respondent in the present application filed a counter alleging that in the order of this Court in M.C.No. 6 of 1965, no specific finding was recorded as to the truth or otherwise of the affidavit of the 1st respondent. The karnam who is the 1st respondent in the present application filed a counter alleging that in the order of this Court in M.C.No. 6 of 1965, no specific finding was recorded as to the truth or otherwise of the affidavit of the 1st respondent. There is also no finding that either the 1st or the 2nd respondent should be prosecuted for any offences relating to the evidence in that case and as such the Court should have proceeded under section 479-A Criminal Procedure Code and when a recourse to that section has not been taken it is not now open to the Court to proceed under section 476 Criminal Procedure Code and section 479-A(6) operates as a bar to the present proceedings. The Magistrate found that the procedure to be adopted was only under section. 476 and not 479-A, Criminal Procedure Code. He however on the evidence found that it cannot be definitely stated that the 1st respondent had intentionally or deliberately given a false affidavit and that not only he (first respondent) but also other persons had given affidavits in support of the claim of respondents 4 and 5 in those proceedings and it is not expedient in the interests of justice that a further inquiry should be held in respect of the alleged offence and dismissed the application. On appeal, the learned District Judge held that the order of the lower Court was passed without a cautious appraisal of the documentary evidence available before it and on a consideration of the material before him, found that it cannot be said that the 1st respondent had no knowledge about facts sworn to by him were false. He also found that the 2nd respondent had utilised the affidavit to further his cause. He further held that there is a growing and a dangerous tendency on the part of the litigant public to perjure themselves and swear to false affidavits in the Courts of law and the administration of justice is thus being polluted, perjuring in Court of law cannot go unscathed and unpunished and it is expedient in the interests of justice that respondents 1 and 2 should be prosecuted for offences under sections 199 and 200 Indian Penal Code. In that view he set aside the order of the Magistrate and directed him to file a complaint in a competent Court for offences under section 199 , and 200 Indian Penal Code against respondents 1 and 2 respectively. Hence this petition to revise that order. It is not now necessary for us to adjudicate on the question whether the affidavit given by the 1st respondent to his knowledge contained false recitals regarding facts and whether he had committed an offence as this is a matter to be gone into by the Criminal Court, in which the complaint any have to be lodged. We now confine ourselves to the question of law as to the procedure to be adopted in such cases Section 479-A was introduced by the Amending Act XXVI of 1955. Prior to it the procedure governing the filing of such complaints was under section 476 Criminal Procedure Code while section 476 Criminal Procedure Code is the general section prescribing the procedure for laying of complaints for offences under section 195 sub- section (1) Clause (b) or clause (c) Indian Penal Code where under complaints can be laid suo motu by the Court or on an application made in the Court, if the Court thinks that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into an offence referred to in section 196 sub- section (1) Clause (b) or clause (c), appears to have been committed in relation to a proceeding in that Court, section 497-A has been introduced as an exception so that the offence relating to perjury committed in Court during the proceeding can be dealt with more expeditiously and at less cost. Section 479-A (1) read as follows: “Notwithstanding any thing contained in sections 476 to 479 inclusive when, any Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court is of opinion that any person appearing before it as a witness has intentionally given false evidence in any stage of the judicial proceeding or has intentionally fabricated false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of the judicial proceeding, and that, for the eradication of the evils of perjury and fabrication of false evidence and in the interests of justice, it is expedient that such witness should be prosecuted for the offence which appears to have been committed by him, the Court shall, at the time of the delivery of the judgment or final order disposing of such proceeding, record a finding to that effect stating its reasons therefor and may, if it so thinks fit, after giving the witness an opportunity of being heard, make a complaint thereof in writing signed by the presiding officer of the Court setting forth the evidence which, in the opinion of the Court, is false or fabricated and forward the same to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction and may, if the accused is present before the Court, take sufficient security for his appearance before such Magistrate and may bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate: “Provided that where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, the complaint may be signed by such Officer of the Court as the Court may appoint.” It can be seen from the above section that if the Court is of the opinion that any person appearing before it as a witness has intentionally given false evidence at any stage of the proceeding or has intentionally fabricated false evidence for the purpose of being used in any state of the judicial proceeding, it is that person that has to be prosecuted. There are two limbs to this clause, viz., intentionally giving false evidence obviously by a person giving evidence on oath in Court, or intentionally fabricating false evidence meaning thereby filing fabricated documents in Court during the proceedings. In both the cases, it should have been done by a witness appearing in Court. Therefore the words ‘any person appearing before it as a witness’ qualifies both the clauses, viz. (1) has intentionally given false evidence and (2) has intentionally fabricated false evidence. In both the cases, it should have been done by a witness appearing in Court. Therefore the words ‘any person appearing before it as a witness’ qualifies both the clauses, viz. (1) has intentionally given false evidence and (2) has intentionally fabricated false evidence. Therefore it is clear that ‘false evidence’ should be in relation to testimony given in a Court on oath or to a document filed in Court by a witness appearing before the Court. The next question that falls for consideration is what is the scope of the words “any person appearing before it as a witness” in the section. Does it apply only to witnesses appearing in person physically in Court and examined or does it embrace all persons who have the status of witnesses whether examined personally in Court or not. As far as the appearance is concerned, Order 5 , rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, empowers a party either to appear in person or by a pleader duly instructed. Order 19 , rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, shows that the person filing an affidavit has the status of a witness. From this it may be contended that when a party in judicial proceedings appears in Court through a pleader, though he may not be examined as a witness and files an affidavit, this should be deemed to be the evidence of a witness appearing in Court. This argument has found favour with Mathur, J., in Sita Ram v. Jagan Lal, (1967) Crl.L.J. 1405. The words “appearing before it” found in the section cannot mean “appearing through a Counsel.” Appearing through Counsel is a procedure available to parties in judicial proceedings. As per the interpretation given in the above decision it would mean that when a party to a proceeding appearing through Counsel files a false affidavit, even though he is not examined as a witness, he will come under the purview of the section and not a person who is not a party to a suit and who is not examined as a witness filing a false affidavit. This distinction that through both are not examined as witnesses in person in Court, it will apply to one and not to the other, cannot in our opinion be imported into these words. The words “a person appearing before it” can only mean appearing in person before the Court as a witness. This distinction that through both are not examined as witnesses in person in Court, it will apply to one and not to the other, cannot in our opinion be imported into these words. The words “a person appearing before it” can only mean appearing in person before the Court as a witness. In Kalipada Maity v. Sukumar Bose, A.I.R. 1962 Cal. 639. it was held that a person swearing to an affidavit before the Commissioner of affidavits appointed by the Court cannot be said to have appeared in person before the Court where the Court in exercise of its discretion has not required his personal appearance for the purpose of cross-examination, that the fact that the term “witnesses” by itself may include persons who have had affidavits filed before any Court cannot be taken to mean that such persons are also persons appearing before any Court as witnesses. In Bamdeb Misra v. Laxmi Malla, A.I.R. 1963 Orissa 179., it was pointed out that the words “appear before a Court” occurring in that section should be given full significance and unless the person actually appears before the Court as a witness section 479-A cannot apply, as by filing a false affidavit, a person does not “appear” as a witness, although the filing of the affidavit may suffice to show that he is a witness. To the same effect is the later decision of the same Court in Paramananda Mahopatra v. State, A.I.R. 1968 Orissa 144. wherein it was held that a party filing a false affidavit in the proceeding cannot be proceeded with under section 479-A Criminal Procedure Code, as he has not been examined as a witness in person in Court. In In re S.E. Ramalingam I.L.R. (1964) 2 Mad. 845: A.I.R. 1965 Mad. 100.a Bench of that Court came to consider the same question and held that the words “any person appearing before it as a witness” employed in section 479-A are not words of art but are only intended to convey the idea of a witness physically appearing in Court and giving evidence or producing documents. We are in agreement with the above opinion. We are in agreement with the above opinion. The object in introducing the amendment by way of section 479-A Criminal Procedure Code, appears to be to have an expeditious disposal of the matter avoiding further elaborate enquiry by a Judge who has tried the case and was passing the order, as he would have had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witness and assessing his evidence in relation to the other evidence in the case and he able to come to the conclusion as to the falsity of the statements made by him either in the witness box or in the other documents including the affidavits filed by him. This being an exception to section 479, Criminal Procedure Code, it should naturally be strictly construed and as such we cannot enlarge the meaning of the words “persons appearing before it as a witness” to include “any person having the status of a witness” by reason of his filing an affidavit alone, though not being examined in Court. We therefore consider that where in judicial proceedings affidavits are filed, unless the person filing the affidavit has also been examined in Court as a witness, he cannot come under the provisions of section 479-A, Criminal Procedure Code. The case should necessarily fall under the provisions of section 476, Criminal Procedure Code. Baban Singh v. Jagdish Singh, (1967) 2 S.C.J. 15: (1967) MLJ. (Crl.) 467: A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 68. relied on by the petitioner also is a case where a person filing the affidavit had been examined in Court as a witness and it was held that section 479-A , Criminal Procedure Code, lays down a special procedure which applied to persons appearing as witnesses before Civil, Revenue or Criminal Courts and do one of two things: (1) intentionally give false evidence in any stage of the judicial proceedings, or (2) intentionally fabricate false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of the judicial proceedings, that the case of filing of false affidavits falls under sections 191 and 192 , Indian Penal Code and not under section 199 and that in such a case where the person filing the affidavit has been examined in Court, the procedure to be followed is the one prescribed under section 479-A, Criminal Procedure Code. In the present case as the person who had filed the affidavit was not examined as a witness in Court, the procedure to be applied to him is not the one under section 479-A , Criminal Procedure Code, but the one prescribed under section 497, Criminal Procedure Code. We therefore see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Sessions Judge, directing the laying of a complaint as provided under section 476, Criminal Procedure Code. This petition is therefore dismissed. K.G.S.-----Petition dismissed.