JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - Petitioner, who was the informant in Khandapada P.S. Case No. 112/92 which was registered as G.R. Case No. 218/92 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khadapada and after commitment tried and disposed of by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nayagarh was alleged by the trial Court to have committed an offence u/s 181, I.P.C. by giving false statement on oath i.e. his evidence during the trial of Sessions Case No, 48/281 of 1993. Learned Additional Sessions Judge in accordance with provision u/s 195, Cr. P.C., lodged the complaint in the Court of J.M.F.C., Khandapada stating therein that during the trial of the case the Petitioner appearing as p. w. No. 1 made false statement on oath and therefore he be prosecuted and punished for the alleged offence. Upon receipt of that complaint, learned J.M. F.C. registered it as 2 (c) C.C. No. 1 of 1996, took cognizance of the offence u/s 181, I.P.C. and issued process against the Petitioner. Thus, the Petitioner has filed this application u/s 482, Cr. P.C., with the prayer to quash the order of the cognizance dated 11-7-1996. 2. Before dealing with the points raised by the Petitioner a brief sketch of the background facts is indicated for better appreciations of the dispute and the contentions raised. In the a above noted Sessions Case Bina Dei was alleged to have been killed by her husband jadumani Pradhan for which charge was framed against him for the offence u/s 302, I.P.C.. The aforesaid Police case resulting in a Sessions trial was at the instance of the present Petitioner who on 5-11-1992 presented a written report before the Officer-in-charge, Khandapada P.S. stating that Bina (the deceased) who is her sister-in-law (being wife's sister) had married to the accused Jadumani Pradhan in the month of Ashadha, 1991 and that on the date of report at about 9 a. m., he got the information of Jadumani having assaulted his wife (the deceased). He proceeded to ascertain the same. He was informed by Bina that as she avoided giving Rs. 30/- to Jadumani which had been deposited by him with her, there was a quarrel and for that Jadumani assaulted her. He proceeded to ascertain the same. He was informed by Bina that as she avoided giving Rs. 30/- to Jadumani which had been deposited by him with her, there was a quarrel and for that Jadumani assaulted her. Petitioner suggested both the spouses to patch up the difference and at this Jadumani become annoyed and took exception to Petitioners intervention and stated that Petitioner was nobody to interfere in the affair between him and his wife and that Petitioner can do nothing if be (Jadu)would assault his wife (Bina) and saying so Jadu assaulted Bina by dealing slaps and fist blows. With mental agony Petitioner returned being unable to do anything in that matter. At about 4 p. m., he got the information that Bina had died. Immediately be went and found in the house of Jadumani Pradhan that Bina was lying dead on the inner verandah of their house and blood was coming out through the nostrils. Thus, Petitioner suspected killing of Bina by Jadumani because on previous occasion also Jadumani was in the habit of abusing and assaulting and torturing Bina. At the time of trial Petitioner as p. w. No. 1 though admitted to have lodged the report i.e., the F.I. R. marked Ext. 1 but in examination-in-chief he stated that he was not remembering what fact was mentioned in that respect. He also stated that he was not examined by the Police. Prosecution was permitted to put leading questions. During that stage, he admitted to have made the F.I.R. and statements before the Police regarding the aforesaid fact. In the cross-examination by the defense Petitioner made a contradictory statement which reads as hereunder: 8. The accused and Bina were leading happy conjugal life, during their wedlock. The accused had not assaulted Bina in my presence in his house. She was ill earlier. I have not seen blood coming outcome her nose. Learned Additional Sessions Judge while writing the judgment of acquittal observed therein that the Petitioner was a lira and has given false evidence on oath besides suppressing the truth and therefore, he is liable for perjury. It was also reflected in that judgment that for the perjury a complaint for the offence u/s 181, I.P.C. would be lodged. 3. Learned Additional Sessions Judge while writing the judgment of acquittal observed therein that the Petitioner was a lira and has given false evidence on oath besides suppressing the truth and therefore, he is liable for perjury. It was also reflected in that judgment that for the perjury a complaint for the offence u/s 181, I.P.C. would be lodged. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that learned Additional Sessions Judge having not made a clear and categorical finding that (i) in his opinion Petitioner while deposing as a witness intentionally gave false evidence and (ii) in the interest of justice, it is expedient that such witnesses should be prosecuted for the said offence. Besides that, he argued, Petitioner was not provided with an opportunity of giving his show cause against the proposed prosecution and therefore the complaint as laid is not maintainable and consequentially cognizance order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. In support of his argument Petitioner relied on the cases of B.K. Pal Chaudhry Vs. The State of Assam Uchhabananda Samantaray Vs. Krishna Kumar Basu and Others & T. Bhagi Patra v. State of Orissa. (1996)10 O.C.R 319 . 4. The facts and ratio in the case of. Dr. Pal Chaudhry (supra) and Uchhabananda Samantaray (supra) were relating to cases involving by the procedure provided u/s 497A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, A bare perusal of the tabular chart and the statutory provision in the respective Chapter of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( i.e., the new Code) it is seen that Section 479A as it was in the Old Code is no more in existence in the new Code. The substantially modified provision can be found in Section 344, Cr. P.C. of the new Code. Section 344 as it stands provides for a summary trial and disposal of cases of perjury after fulfilling the requirements in the manner argued by learned Counsel for the Petitioner following the ratio in the cited decisions. In this case, learned Additional Sessions Judge did not proceed with the matter in accordance with Section 344. Cr. P.C. and he was not bound to follow the same, hence literally the ratio in the aforesaid cases are not applicable. 5. In this case, learned Additional Sessions Judge did not proceed with the matter in accordance with Section 344. Cr. P.C. and he was not bound to follow the same, hence literally the ratio in the aforesaid cases are not applicable. 5. In the case of T. Bhagi Patra (supra) also this Court was considering a case of deficiency in following the procedure as provided in Section 344 though a proceeding was taken under that provision. Thus, as noted above, learned Additional Sessions Judge having not initiated the proceeding u/s 344, his action cannot be said to be illegal on that score. 6. The provisions in Section 195 and Chapter XXVI which comprises of Section 340 to 352 are relevant to be properly understood to examine correctness of the action under challenge. 7. Sections 195 and 340 of the new Code, which are two most relevant provisions for the present purpose, are quoted as hereunder: Section 195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence- 1. No Court shall take cognizance (a) (i) of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or (ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offences, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate; (b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following, sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) namely, Sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 28, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any court, or (ii) of any offence described in Section 463, or punishable u/s 471, Section 475 or 476 of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in Sub-clause (i) or Sub-clause (ii). except on the complaint in writing of that Code, or of some other court to which that Court is subordinate, 2. except on the complaint in writing of that Code, or of some other court to which that Court is subordinate, 2. Where a complaint has been made by a public servant under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) any authority to which he is administratively subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of such order to the Court; and upon its receipt by the Court, no further proceedings shall be taken on the comment: Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded. 3. In Clause (b) of Sub-section (1), the term "Court" means a civil revenue or criminal court, and includes a tribunal Constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be a court for the purposes of this section. 4. For the purposes of cause (b) of Sub-section (1), Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of such former Court, or in the case of a Civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the principal Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction such Civil Court is situate: Provided that- (a) where appeals lie to more than one Court, the Appellate Court of inverter jurisdiction shall be the Court to which such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate; (b) where appeals lie to a civil and also to a revenue court, such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Civil or Revenue Court according to the nature of the case or proceeding in connection with which the offence is alleged to have been committed. 340. Procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195. 1. 340. Procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195. 1. When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary- (a) record a finding to that effect; (b) make a complaint thereof in writing; (c) send it to a Magistrate of the First Class having jurisdiction; (d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate or if the alleged offence is non-boilable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and (e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate. 2. The power conferred on a court by Sub-section (1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that Court has neither made a complaint under Sub-section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of Sub-section (4) Section 195. 3. A complaint made under this section be signed (a) where the Court making complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint; (b) in any other case, by the Presiding Officer of the Court. 4. In this section "Court" has the same meaning as in Section 195. 8. On a plain reading of the aforesaid two provisions it is clear that no Court shall take cognizance of the offence u/s 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code or any abatement or attempt to commit such offence except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concern or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. That is the requirement of law for lodging a complaint under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 195. That is the requirement of law for lodging a complaint under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 195. When offence punishable u/s 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228 is alleged to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in any Court or any offence. described u/s 463, Cr. P.C. or punishable u/s 471, 475, or 476 of the Indian Penal Code has been alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court or any criminal conspiracy to commit or attempt to commit or the abatement of any such offence is alleged, then no Court shall take cognizance except on the complaint in writing of that Court or some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. It is provided in Section 340 Sub-section (1) that whenever an application is made regarding commission of any of the offences or the attempt or abatement thereof etc. which is provided in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 195, and the Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made relating to commission of such offence then such Court after such preliminary enquiry, if any, record a finding to that effect and make a complaint thereof in writing and send it to a Magistrate of the First Class having jurisdiction to try the offender. (The above underlining is with a view to put emphasis). Therefore, it is clear from the statutory provisions as noted above that the inquiry contemplated u/s 340 for lodging complaint is only applicable when a complaint is lodged under clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 195. To put it otherwise, the language in Section 340 or any of the provisions in that Chapter do not prescribe or provide for conducting an inquiry by the complaining authority in accordance with Sub-section (1) of Section 340, when a complaint is made under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 195. 9. As already noted, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nayagarh lodged the complaint for the offence u/s 181, I.P.C. and such offence is not covered by the provisions in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 195. On the other hand, it is covered by the provision in Clause (a) of Sub-section (l) of Section 195. 9. As already noted, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nayagarh lodged the complaint for the offence u/s 181, I.P.C. and such offence is not covered by the provisions in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 195. On the other hand, it is covered by the provision in Clause (a) of Sub-section (l) of Section 195. Therefore, not serving a show -cause notice and not venturing into an inquiry for lodging a complaint for the offence u/s 181, I.P.C. is not volatile of the procedural law as noted and discussed above. Hence,the action taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be said to be illegal i.e., in violation of the provisions of law. 10. Be that as it may, the evidence quoted by learned Additional Sessions Judge (which has also been to some extent reflected and discussed in this judgment in a proceeding paragraph) is clearly noted by learned Additional Sessions Judge that Petitioner as p. w. No. 1 disposed falsehood. It is not a question of making a comparison between his evidence vis-a-vis the F.I.R. and the 161. Cr. P.C. statement but it was done by learned Additional Sessions Judge on due comparison of two contradictory statements on the self same subject given on oath at the stage of examination-in-chief (while prosecution being permitted to put leading questions) and the cross-examination. The evidence of p. w. No. 1 is sufficient to hold that he has deposed falsehood while on oath. Perjury is a matter of concern when it occurs in a serious case like murder trials when witnesses turn hostile to the prosecution and give contradictory evidence on oath. Here it is not a case of an individual seeking the prosecution of the Petitioner on the ground of personal vengeance so that the matter could be further analyzed to find out whether a trial for perjury should be undertaken or not. In this case it will be appropriate to say here that learned Additional Sessions Judge, as the trial court, has perhaps taken a right decision and consequently action thereof to deal with a case of perjury in its aggravated manner. In such type of cases, if the trial courts or the appellate authority when the trial court fails to take such action, shall not take up that attitude then dispersion of criminal justice shall be reduced to a mockery in such type of cases. In such type of cases, if the trial courts or the appellate authority when the trial court fails to take such action, shall not take up that attitude then dispersion of criminal justice shall be reduced to a mockery in such type of cases. In pursuing such type of litigation and if found guilty by punishing perjurers win send a signals to the society where unscrupulous person should at least desist from committing perjury. 11. During the course of argument nothing was argued by the Petitioner disputing the status of the Additional Sessions Judge as a public servant. He also did not argue anything objecting to applicability of the provision u/s 181, I.P.C. so far as the alleged misconduct of the Petitioner is concerned. Therefore, this Court does not deal with that aspect at all. 12. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any reason to quash the cognizance order. Thus, the Criminal Misc. case is dismissed. Since the case relates to the year 1996, learned J.M.F.C. shall do well to undertake the trial expeditiously and to complete the sale as early as possible. It is also noted for his information and guidance that nothing discussed in this judgment shall be taken to the head or heart while adjudicating the case. In other words, learned Magistrate shall decide the case on its own merit basing of the evidence and the ingredients of the law. l3. Registry is directed to send back the L.C.R. to the Court below immediately and to ensure it's reaching to the lower court within a period of 15 days hence. Crl. misc. case dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed