B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS criminal appeal is directed against the order dated 2-5-2003 passed in M. V. O. P. No. 883 of 1998 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, guntur, whereby, the learned Additional district Judge found R. W. 1- Ravuri Manohar babu guilty for the offence under Section 344 Cr. P. C. and convicted him accordingly and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. ( 2 ) THE appellant is R. W. 1 in M. V. O. P. No. 883 of 1998. The facts of the case, in brief, giving rise to filing of this criminal appeal by R. W. 1- Ravuri Manohar Babu in m. V. O. P. No. 883 of 1998 on the file of the i Additional District Judge, Guntur, are as follows: neelam Parvathamma, Neelam Syam prasad and Neelam Rambabu filed M. V. O. P. No. 883 of 1998 under Section 166 of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the death of Neelam Venkata Satyanarayana in a road accident occurred on 7-10-1998 at about 6-00 a. m. , at Guntur-Prattipadu Road at 8/15 k. M. stone. The A. P. S. R. T. C. represented by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, hyderabad is the respondent therein. It is averred in M. V. O. P. No. 883 of 2003 that the bus bearing No. AP 10z 4714 of Chirala depot of Prakasam District owned by A. P. S. R. T. C. came in high speed and dashed Neelam Venkata Satyanarayana and as a result, the said Neelam Venkata satyanarayana fell down on road margin and met with instantaneous death. A case in crime No. 111 of 1998 under Section 304-A ipc came to be registered by the Station house Officer, Prattipadu Police Station. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. A claim of rs. 1,00,000/- has been made by the claimants under various heads as compensation for the loss of the life of Neelam Venkata satyanarayana in the road accident. The claimants are wife and sons of the said neelam Venkata Satyanarayana. ( 3 ) THE respondent therein, i. e. , a. P. S. R. T. C. filed counter resisting the claim of the claimants. The claimants are wife and sons of the said neelam Venkata Satyanarayana. ( 3 ) THE respondent therein, i. e. , a. P. S. R. T. C. filed counter resisting the claim of the claimants. ( 4 ) ON behalf of the claimants, one witness was examined and six documents were marked. On behalf of the A. P. S. R. T. C. , the driver of the crime bus was examined as rw1-Ravuri Manohar Babu (appellant herein ). ( 5 ) THE learned Additional District judge, while passing the judgment in m. V. O. P. No. 883 of 1998, recorded a finding that R. W. 1-Ravuri Manohar Babu (appellant herein) had given a false evidence. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:"as already observed a finding was given that R. W. 1-R. Manohar Babu gave false affidavit for his chief-examination and false evidence before the Court in this case which is a judicial proceeding knowingly and wilfully that he is giving a false evidence to the effect that he had not caused any accident on the date and time of the accident even though he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one month for his rash and negligent driving on the date of the accident in the criminal case filed by the police against him under Section 304-A i. P. C. and thereby a notice to show-cause why he should not be convicted for giving such a false evidence in the judicial proceeding knowingly and wilfully that he is giving a false evidence as contemplated under Section 191 IPC is to be issued under section 344 Cr. P. C. In the case of "in Re: suo Motu Proceedings against R. Karuppan, advocate, (2001) 5 SCC 289 . Their Lordships k. T. Thomas, R. P. Sethi and B. N. Agarwal observed as follows: an affidavit is evidence within the meaning of Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code. It is a fact, though unfortunate, that a general impression is created that most of the witnesses coming in the Courts despite taking oath make false statements to suit the interests of the parties calling them. Effective and stern action is required to be taken for preventing the evil of perjury, concededly let loose by vested interest and professional litigants. It is a fact, though unfortunate, that a general impression is created that most of the witnesses coming in the Courts despite taking oath make false statements to suit the interests of the parties calling them. Effective and stern action is required to be taken for preventing the evil of perjury, concededly let loose by vested interest and professional litigants. The mere existence of the penal provisions to deal with perjury would be a cruel joke with the society unless the Courts stop to take an evasive recourse despite proof of the commission of the offence under Chapter XI of the Indian penal Code. If the system is to survive, effective action is the need of the time. The present case is no exception to the general practice being followed by many of the litigants in the country. in view of the said decision, it is the bounden duty of the Courts of Law to take stern and effective action against such offence and stop taking evasive recourse. Hence, it is to be held that a notice under section 344 Cr. P. C. , is liable to be issued to r. W. 1-R. Manohar Babu for giving false evidence as defined under Section 191 IPC knowingly and wilfully that he is giving a false evidence in a judicial proceeding and accordingly ordered to issue by 4-4-2003. " ( 6 ) THE learned Additional District judge issued a show-cause notice dated 20-3-2003 directing R. W. 1-Ravuri Manohar babu (appellant) to show-cause why he should not be convicted for giving false affidavit in examination-in-chief in M. V. O. P. No. 883 of 1998, which is a judicial proceeding, knowingly and wilfully conscious of the same. The appellant-R. W. 1- ravuri Manohar Babu submitted explanation to the show-cause notice. He pleaded in the explanation that he filed an appeal in c. A. No. 348 of 2001 on the file of the i Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, challenging his conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 304-A IPC, and secured suspension of sentence pending the appeal. The learned Additional Sessions judge being not satisfied with the explanation proceeded to pass final order and accordingly, passed order on 2-5-2003. Assailing the said order, R. W. 1 -Ravuri Manohar Babu has filed this criminal appeal. The learned Additional Sessions judge being not satisfied with the explanation proceeded to pass final order and accordingly, passed order on 2-5-2003. Assailing the said order, R. W. 1 -Ravuri Manohar Babu has filed this criminal appeal. ( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that even if the entire affidavit of the appellant filed in examination- in-chief under Order 18 Rule 4 (1) C. P. C. , is considered in toto, no offence is made out against him and thus, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. ( 8 ) LEARNED Public Prosecutor supports the impugned judgment. ( 9 ) THE genesis of the initiation of the proceedings under Section 344 Cr. P. C. is the affidavit of the appellant, who has been examined as R. W. 1 in M. V. O. P. No. 883 of 1998, filed in examination-in-chief under order 18 Rule 4 (1) of C. P. C. I deem it appropriate to refer the affidavit filed by the appellant and it is thus:"i, R. Manohar Babu S/o. Veeraiah Sarma, hindu, aged about 40 years, RTC Driver, resident of Podili, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows: i am the deponent herein and Driver of the respondent Corporation and as such, I am well acquainted with the facts of the case. I am the driver of the RTC bus bearing no. AP 10z 4717 AN and on 7-10-1998 at 4-30 a. m. , I started the bus from Cherukuru to go to Chirala. I reached Chirala at 9-20 a. m. , then I handed over the bus in the garage of APSRTC and I went to my village ravinuthala. On 11-10-1998 when I came to Chirala I came to know the police of prattipadu Police Stataion, registered a case against me alleging that I have caused an accident on 7-10-1998 at Prattipadu and one person was dead. Immediately, I surrendered before the Court of VII A. M. M. Court, guntur and obtained a bail. In fact I did not cause any accident on 7-10-1998 at Prattipadu as alleged by the police. Further, on 7-10-1998 the bus AP 10z 4717 which was driven by me was not involved in any accident and the bus was not dashed any person much less the deceased, as alleged by the petitioners. I therefore pray that the petition may be dismissed. Further, on 7-10-1998 the bus AP 10z 4717 which was driven by me was not involved in any accident and the bus was not dashed any person much less the deceased, as alleged by the petitioners. I therefore pray that the petition may be dismissed. " ( 10 ) THE learned Additional District judge placed reliance on the judgment of the supreme Court In Re : Suo Motu proceedings against R. Karuppan, Advocate, (2001) 5 SCC 289 and applied the principles laid down therein to the facts of the case on hand. In the cited case it has been held that an affidavit is an evidence within the meaning of Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code and person swearing to a false affidavit is guilty of perjury punishable under Section 193 ipc. ( 11 ) THE facts in the cited case and the facts of the case on hand are distinctive and the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cited case is wholly inapplicable to the facts of the case on hand. ( 12 ) THE learned Additional District judge draws a conclusion that the appellant denied of the criminal proceedings against him for the offence under Section 304-A ipc. I have read and reread the affidavit filed by the appellant in examination-in- chief as contemplated under Order 18 rule 4 (1) of C. P. C. What all he stated is that after the crime was registered, he surrendered himself before the Court and thereafter, he secured bail in the said crime. What is omitted by the appellant in his affidavit filed in examination-in-chief is with regard to his conviction for the offence under Section 304-A. Mere omission to state certain facts in examination-in-chief, in my considered view, does not amount to false evidence. In cross-examination, he admits of his conviction for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant gave false evidence as defined under Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant/accused in accordance with Section 344 Cr. P. C. is not legal and proper and the same is liable to be set aside. ( 13 ) ACCORDINGLY, the criminal appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant recorded under section 344 Cr. P. C. and he is acquitted of the same. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant/accused in accordance with Section 344 Cr. P. C. is not legal and proper and the same is liable to be set aside. ( 13 ) ACCORDINGLY, the criminal appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant recorded under section 344 Cr. P. C. and he is acquitted of the same. The bail bonds furnished by him shall stand cancelled.