JUDGMENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. R. Sarma 1. This criminal revision petition, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called 'Cr.P.C.'), is directed against the judgment and order, dated 24.06.2002, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.3, West Tripura, Agartala, in Case No. Criminal Appeal 03(1) of 2000. 2. The appeal aforesaid, was preferred by the present petitioners as appellants, challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, dated 04.12.1999, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala, in Case No.C.R.2972/1997, under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called 'IPC'). 3. By the said judgment and order, dated 04.12.1999, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, convicted the appellants, under Section 193 IPC and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default suffer rigorous imprisonment for another period of three months. 4. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, by the impugned judgment and order, dated 24.06.2002, while upholding the conviction aforesaid, modified the sentences, requiring the appellants to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default suffer rigorous imprisonment for another period of three months. 5. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the convicted persons as petitioners, have come up with this revision, challenging the legality and correctness of the impugned judgment and order aforesaid. 6. This relates to allegation of giving false evidence by the petitioners, who were witnesses in S.T. Case No.14(WT/S)/1995, disposed of by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala. 7. The prosecution case, as revealed, during the trial, may, in brief, be stated as follows :- On the intervening night of 07.12.1992 and 08.12.1992, at about 3-O clock, Smti Kanan Bala Das (hereinafter called 'the deceased'), aged about 17 years, an unmarried daughter of Sri Sudhir Chandra Das, was found lying dead on the road near her house. Accordingly, Sri Bimal Chandra Das (one of the petitioners), lodged a FIR with the police, informing therein, that the deceased had disclosed, in his presence as well as in presence of other witnesses, including her parents, that she was given dao blows by Sri Bhanu Das, with whom she had love affairs. 8. Accordingly, Sri Bimal Chandra Das (one of the petitioners), lodged a FIR with the police, informing therein, that the deceased had disclosed, in his presence as well as in presence of other witnesses, including her parents, that she was given dao blows by Sri Bhanu Das, with whom she had love affairs. 8. On receipt of the FIR, police registered a case, being Jatrapur P.S. Case No.2(12) of 1992, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called 'IPC') and launched investigation into the matter. 9. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer forwarded Sri Subal Chandra Das, Sri Kshitish Chandra Das, Smti Gita Rani Das and Sri Kshetra Mohan Das (all petitioners), to the Court of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sonamura, for recording their statements, under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and, accordingly, the learned SDJM, recorded their statements. In their statements, made under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the said witnesses stated that, upon their arrival at the place of occurrence, the deceased told them that the accused, namely Sri Bhanu Das, had inflicted her injuries by means of a dao. 10. At the close of investigation, in the said criminal case, police submitted charge sheet against Sri Bhanu Das and forwarded him to the Court to stand trial. In the said Sessions Trial, initiated vide S.T.No.14(WT/S)/1995 against Sri Bhanu Das, the petitioners, who were the witnesses in the said Sessions Case, denied to have made any disclosure by the deceased about her assailant and, thus, they declined to make any incriminating statements against the accused person i.e. Sri Bhanu Das. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, by his judgment and order, dated 18.12.1997, passed in S.T.No.14(WT/S)/95, while acquitting Sri Bhanu Das, observed that the petitioners gave false evidence before the Court. Therefore, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, lodged a written complaint, before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala, against the petitioners, alleging that, they had given false evidence before the Court. 11. Upon receipt of the said complaint, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, registered a case, being C.R. Case No.2972/1997 and took cognizance of the offence, under Section 193 IPC, against the petitioners and issued notices, requiring their appearance. On their appearance, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, framed charge under Section 193 IPC. The charge was explained to the petitioners, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 12. On their appearance, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, framed charge under Section 193 IPC. The charge was explained to the petitioners, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 12. At the close of the evidence for the prosecution, the petitioners, who were the accused persons in the said criminal proceeding, were examined, under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the allegations, brought against them and declined to adduce defence evidence. Their plea was a total denial one. They further contended, in their statements, made under Section 313 Cr.P.C., that they were threatened and tutored by police to give statements, under Section 164 Cr.P.C. They also pleaded that they made true statements before the Sessions Court and that they have not committed any offence. 13. Sri Bimal Das, who was the informant in the said sessions case, stated that, on the fateful night, he being accompanied by other witness, including the parents of the deceased, visited the place of occurrence and found the deceased, in presence of her parents, brother and sister, lying dead. He further stated that, on being requested by the villagers, he along with one Sri Bishnu Das, went to the police station, wherein his signature was taken in a blank paper. The other four petitioners, who made statements, under Section 164 Cr.P.C., stated that, they made their statements in the alleged way, on being tutored and tortured by police. 14. I have heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners and Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State-respondent and perused the record of the case. 15. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that the failure of the witnesses to support the statements made, under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which do not tally with the statements made before the Court in a criminal trial, can't be a ground to hold that the witnesses are guilty of giving false evidence. 15. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that the failure of the witnesses to support the statements made, under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which do not tally with the statements made before the Court in a criminal trial, can't be a ground to hold that the witnesses are guilty of giving false evidence. The learned counsel, has strenuously argued that, before lodging a complaint under the provision of Section 195 Cr.P.C., the Court must come to a definite opinion, as prescribed by Section 340 Cr.P.C., that it is expedient in the interest of justice, that an enquiry should be made into any offence, under Sections 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205 to 211 and 228 IPC, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court and that, in the absence of formation of such opinion, as indicated above, the complaint, lodged with the allegation of giving false evidence, is not sustainable in the eye of law. The learned counsel, has further submitted that, as the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, while submitting the complaint, did not form any opinion, that it would be expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made regarding commission of offence under Section 193 IPC, the entire proceeding got vitiated due to non-compliance of the statutory provision, as prescribed by Section 340 Cr.P.C. It has also been submitted that, failure of the trial court to examine the Investigating Officer, who had registered the FIR, alleged to be lodged by the petitioner No.1, the Police Officer, who produced the witnesses before the learned magistrate for recording their statements, under section 164 Cr.PC and the Judicial Magistrate, who recorded the statements of the petitioner Nos. 2 to 4, under Section 164 Cr.P.C., caused much prejudiced to the defence and as such the conviction and sentence, recorded against the petitioners, can't be allowed to stand in the eye of law. It has also been contended, on behalf of the petitioners, that as revealed from the record, the petitioner No.1 (i.e. the informant in sessions case, along with other witnesses, including the parents of the deceased, arrived at the place of occurrence and none of the said witnesses, including the parents of the deceased, stated, during the sessions trial, that the deceased had disclosed the identity of her assailant. Therefore, it is submitted that had the deceased disclosed the identity of her assailant then certainly, her parents and other witnesses, would have heard the same and supported the contention made in the F.I.R. It is further contended that the informant, in his statement, made under Section 313 Cr.P.C., clearly stated that his signature was taken on a blank paper in the police station and that he put his signature in the FIR on being asked by the Police officer. It is also contended that failure of the police to furnish a copy of the FIR, lodged by the informant, immediately after receipt of the same in the Police Station, caused prejudice to the informant-petitioner. It is also submitted that statements, made under Section 164 Cr.P.C, were not voluntary because the petitioner Nos.2 to 4, were tutored and threatened by police to give statement and as such, they are not liable for their failure to support the said statements, made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 16. In view of above submissions, the learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners, has urged that the impugned conviction and sentence can't be allowed to stand in the eye of law and that the learned courts below committed gross error and injustice by recording the conviction and sentence against the petitioners. 17. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, has relied on the following decisions :- (i) K. K. Khanna & others vs. M/S Expo Enterprise India, 1984 CRI.L.J. 1723; (ii) Santokh Singh vs. Izhar Hussain, AIR 1973 SC 2190 ; (iii) Muthu Karuppan, Commissioner of Police, Chennai vs. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi, (2011) 5 SCC 496 ; (iv) Shiv Prasad Pliwal vs. State of Rajasthan, 1992 CRI.L.J. 357; (v) N. Natarajan vs. B. K. Subba Rao, AIR 2003 SC 541 ; (vi) Thomman vs. IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Ernakulum and others, 1994 CRI.L.J. 48; (v) Johnson vs. State of Kerala, 1996 CRI.L.J. 2338; (vi) Abdul Kalam vs. State of Tripura, (2002) 1 GLR 378; (vii) Bijoy Kumar & others vs. State of Assam, (1996) 2 GLR 373; (viii) Md. Ahmed Ali & others vs. State of Assam, (1998) 1 GLR 455; (ix) Mutum Iboton singh vs. Moirangthem Yalma Singh, AIR 1963 Man 21; 18. Supporting the impugned judgment and order aforesaid, Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Addl. Ahmed Ali & others vs. State of Assam, (1998) 1 GLR 455; (ix) Mutum Iboton singh vs. Moirangthem Yalma Singh, AIR 1963 Man 21; 18. Supporting the impugned judgment and order aforesaid, Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, has submitted that, there are sufficient materials, on record, to show that the petitioners, by deviating from their statements, made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the FIR, gave false evidence in the sessions trial and, as such, the learned courts below committed no error by holding the petitioners guilty of the offence under Section 193 IPC. 19. Mr. R.K. Ghosh, the then learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, who lodged the complaint, alleging that the petitioners gave false evidence before him, has been examined as PW.1 in C.R. Case No.2972/97. This witness, stated that, he lodged the complaint against the informant (PW.1) and the witnesses i.e. PW.6, PW.7, PW.8 and PW.16, who deposed in the Sessions Trial No.14(WT/S)/95, for giving false evidence, in the said trial. He has exhibited the complaint, lodged by him, as Ext.P/1. In his cross-examination, made on behalf of the defence i.e. the petitioners, he denied the suggestions, put to him, that the accused persons i.e. the petitioners did not give false evidence in the sessions case aforesaid. He further stated that, the FIR, which gave rise to the sessions case, was written by Sri Keshab Chandra Majumder, S.I. of Police, as its scribe and that the said scribe was not examined by the prosecution, in the sessions trial. He also admitted that the FIR aforesaid, was not brought in evidence and that the statements, recorded under Section164 Cr.P.C. (Ext.P/2 series), do not indicate that the learned Magistrate, at the time of recording the statements, had administered oath to the witnesses. PW.1 aforesaid, further stated that the learned Magistrate, while recording the said statements, did not issue any certificate, indicating that the statements were made voluntarily. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, in his evidence, given as PW.1, admitted that, all those four persons i.e. the petitioners, stated before the court in the said Sessions trial, that they were produced by the police before the learned SDJM, Sonamura, under threat. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, in his evidence, given as PW.1, admitted that, all those four persons i.e. the petitioners, stated before the court in the said Sessions trial, that they were produced by the police before the learned SDJM, Sonamura, under threat. He also admitted that, had the SI, Sri Keshab Chandra Majumder, been examined by the prosecution, as a witness, in the sessions trial, it would have been revealed, as to whether those persons were produced before the Magistrate under threat or not. PW.1 further stated, in his cross-examination, that the parents of the deceased, who were examined as PWs. 4 and 5, did not state that the deceased had disclosed either to them or anybody about the involvement of Sri Bhanu Das (accused in sessions trial). He also stated that, in the sessions trial, none of the prosecution witnesses stated that the deceased had disclosed before anybody regarding involvement of Sri Bhanu Das aforesaid. This witness further stated that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses does not indicate that the statements, made under Section 164 Cr.P.C., were read over to them. He denied the suggestion that the petitioners gave true evidence before the trial court. The complaint lodged by the PW.1 i.e. Ext.P/1, reads as follows:- OFFICE OF THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, WEST TRIPURA :: AGARTALA. No.2165 Dated, Agartala, The 19th December,1997. To The Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura District, Agartala. Subject :- Complaint against the under-mentioned persons for giving false evidence in the court. Sir, I would like to inform you that during trial of S.T. case No.14(WT/S)95 (State of Tripura 'Vrs-Shri Bhanu Das, accused), the Informant Bimal Das and some witnesses, namely, Subal Das, Kshitish Das, Smti Gita Rani Das and Kshetra Mohan Das gave false evidence before the Court and to that effect finding was given in the judgment dated 18.12.1997 passed in the said case. The informant, Bimal Das lodged an ejahar on 08.12.1992 with Jatrapur P.S. stating that the victim girl Smti Kanan Bala Das, who sustained severe bleeding cut-injuries on her person, stated to him and others immediately after the occurrence that accused Bhanu Das dealt those dao blows on her person by saying that he would kill her and immediately thereafter said Kanan Bala succumbed to injuries. But while giving evidence before the court as P.W.1 said Informant Bimal Das totally suppressed the said facts and did not say anything against accused Bhanu Das. Prosecution witnesses of the said Sessions Case, namely, Subal Das, Kshitish Das, Smti Gita Rani Das and Kshetra Mohan Das gave statements voluntarily under Section164(5) of the Cr.P.C. few days after the occurrence disclosing some facts which were disclosed by victim Kanan Bala before her death regarding involvement of accused Bhanu Das in the aforesaid murder of Kanan Bala and the Learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sonamura recorded said statements on 23.12.1992 and thereafter read over and explained those statements to said witnesses, as revealed from the evidence of Learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sonamura Mr. A. Pal. But while giving evidence before the court they denied to have made such statements and further that they said nothing against the concerning accused Bhanu Das and thereby they gave false evidence before the court. Said accused Bhanu Das has been acquitted. In this background lodge this complaint for taking proper action against those persons according to law. The relevant case record (S.T.14(WT/S)95) shall be sent as and when it will be called for. Myself shall be also a witness. Name and address of those persons :- 1) Shri Bimal Das, informant (P.W.1) S/O Shri Harimohan Das. 2) Shri Subal Chandra Das, (P.W.6) S/O Late Prasanna Kumar Das. 3) Shri Kshitish Das, (P.W.7) S/O Late Rajani Kumar Das. 4) Smti Gita Rani Das, (P.W.8) W/O Shri Chandra Mohan Das. 5) Shri Kshetra Mohan Das, (P.W.16) S/O Late Ramani Mohan Das. - all of village Baramura, P.S.-Jatrapur, District-West Tripura. 20. In the complaint aforesaid, it has been alleged that Sri Bimal Das (petitioner No.1), on 08.12.1992, lodged the FIR, disclosing that the deceased had informed him and others, immediately after the occurrence that the accused Sri Bhanu Das had given dao blows on her person with a view to kill her, but the informant, while giving evidence as PW.1, suppressed the said fact and stated that the deceased did not state anything against the accused Sri Bhanu Das. In the said complaint, it has also been alleged, that though the other witnesses i.e. the petitioner Nos. In the said complaint, it has also been alleged, that though the other witnesses i.e. the petitioner Nos. 2 to 5, voluntarily gave statements, under Section 164(5) Cr.P.C., indicating that the deceased, before her death, disclosed the involvement of Sri Bhanu Das, in connection with her murder, the said witnesses gave false evidence while deposing in the Sessions trial. 21. Section 340 Cr.P.C., which provides the procedure, to be followed, in respect of the proceeding under Section 195 Cr.P.C., reads as follows :- 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 interests 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 for the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable 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) of section 195. (3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed,- (a) where the Court making the 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 or by such officer of the Court as the Court may authorise in writing in this behalf. (4) In this section, 'Court' has the same meaning as in Section 195. 22. Admittedly, this proceeding has been initiated under the provisions of 195 Cr.P.C., which deals with the 'Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence'. Sub-clause (b)(i) to Clause (1) of Section 195 aforesaid, covers the proceeding under Section193 IPC. A plain reading of the provision of clause(1) of Section 340 Cr.P.C. aforesaid makes it clear that, a Court, before making a complaint, alleging commission of offences mentioned in Section 195 Cr.P.C., which includes the offence under Section 193 IPC, is required to form an opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence, referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 Cr.P.C., 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. It has also been provided by Section 340 CrPC that the Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, record a finding to that effect and make a complaint thereof in writing. 23. In the case of K.K. Khannan & others (supra), it has been held that before lodging a complaint for offences under Sections 191 and 193 IPC, the court must come to a finding that the lodging of the complaint is expedient in the interest of justice as required under Section 340 CrPC. 24. A careful reading of the Section 340 CrPC, coupled with the decision by the Supreme Court in the case of K.K. Khatun (supra), makes it clear that, before making a complaint alleging perjury and for prosecuting a person for the offence under Section 193 IPC, the court, which lodges such complaint must take a positive view giving its bindings to the effect that the lodging of the complaint would be expedient in the interest of justice. Failure to arrive at such a finding would amount to non-compliance of the statutory provision. Therefore, a complaint lodged, without recording such findings, would vitiate the entire proceeding arising out of such complaint, due to noncompliance of the statutory provision, as prescribed by Section 340 CrPC. 25. Failure to arrive at such a finding would amount to non-compliance of the statutory provision. Therefore, a complaint lodged, without recording such findings, would vitiate the entire proceeding arising out of such complaint, due to noncompliance of the statutory provision, as prescribed by Section 340 CrPC. 25. If a witness resiles, in the trial court, from his earlier statement made under Section 164 CrPC, it is necessary for the court to firstly determine whether the statement made under Section 164CrPC or the evidence given in the court at the trial was false. If it is found that the statement given under Section 164 CrPC was false then a prosecution would not be expedient in the interest of justice. 26. In the present case, the complaint, lodged by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge i.e. PW.1, does not reveal, that he had formed any opinion that it was expedient, in the interests of justice, to initiate proceeding against the petitioners. 27. In view of above, it is found that the complaint has been lodged by the PW.1 without complying with the statutory requirement, as prescribed by Section 340 Cr.P.C. There can be no dispute that, the said action, taken contrary to the statutory provision, is bad in the eye of law. Therefore, the said complaint (Ext.P/1) itself is hit by the provision of Section 340 Cr.P.C. 28. The plain case of the prosecution is that, the petitioner No.1, who lodged the FIR (Ext.P/1, in sessions trial), did not support the contention made therein, at the time of giving evidence as PW.1 and that the petitioner Nos. 2 to 5, who made statements, under Section 164 Cr.P.C., involving the accused person, namely Sri Bhanu Das, with the murder of the deceased, did not support their said statements at the time of giving evidence as PW.6, PW.7, PW.8 and PW.16, in the sessions trial. There is no dispute that they failed to support the statements made, in the FIR as well as the statements made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 29. Now, the short question that involves, in the case at hand, is as to whether failure of the witnesses to support the contentions, made in the said FIR as well as in the earlier statements, under Section 164 Cr.P.C., would make them liable for punishment under Section 193 IPC. Now, the short question that involves, in the case at hand, is as to whether failure of the witnesses to support the contentions, made in the said FIR as well as in the earlier statements, under Section 164 Cr.P.C., would make them liable for punishment under Section 193 IPC. In other words, whether such failure, on the part of the witnesses, would automatically indicate that they gave false evidence before the trial Court. 30. In the case of Santokh Singh (supra) the Supreme Court observed that every incorrect or false statement does not make it incumbent on the court to order prosecution and the court has to exercise discretion in the light of all the relevant circumstances when it determines the question of expediency. It has also been observed that the court is to order prosecution in the larger interest of administration of justice and not to gratify feelings of personal revenge or vindictiveness or to serve the ends of a private party. 31. In the case of Muthu Karuppan, Commissioner of Police, Chennai vs. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi, reported in (2011) 5 SCC 496 , the Supreme Court observed :- 15. Giving false evidence by filing false affidavit is an evil which must be effectively curbed with a strong hand. Prosecution should be ordered when it is considered expedient in the interest of justice to punish the delinquent, but there must be a prima facie case of deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance and the court should be satisfied that there is a reasonable foundation for the charge. 16. In a series of decisions, this Court held that the enquiry/contempt proceedings should be initiated by the court in exceptional circumstances where the court is of the opinion that perjury has been committed by a party deliberately to have some beneficial order from the court. There must be grounds of a nature higher than mere surmise or suspicion for initiating such proceedings. There must be distinct evidence of the commission of an offence by such a person as mere suspicion cannot bring home the charge of making false statement, more so, the court has to determine as on facts whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to enquire into offence which appears to have been committed. 32. There must be distinct evidence of the commission of an offence by such a person as mere suspicion cannot bring home the charge of making false statement, more so, the court has to determine as on facts whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to enquire into offence which appears to have been committed. 32. In the case of Shiv Prasad Pliwal vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1992 CRI.L.J 357, a learned Single Judge of Rajasthan High Court has observed that a court lodging a complaint alleging perjury is required to give an opinion that it is in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made and in the absence of such opinion/findings the proceeding, following the complaint, is to be quashed. 33. In the case of N. Natarajan vs. B. K. Subba Rao, reported in AIR 2003 SC 541 , the Supreme Court observed that when the provision of Section 340 CrPC is involved, the court has to act in the interest of justice. 34. In the case of Thomman vs. IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Ernakulum and others reported in 1994 CRI.L. J. 48, the appellant was a witness in a Sessions trial. He deposed in the court quite contrary to what he had said in a statement recorded by a Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC. The learned Sessions Judge, took the view that he gave false evidence knowingly and without any regard to truth. After considering cause shown by the appellant, in reply to show cause notice, the learned Sessions Judge caused a complaint to be filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. According to the appellant, he gave statement under Section 164CrPC on being threatened by police to say so. While allowing the appeal and setting aside the direction to file a complaint, the Supreme Court observed that every false testimony should not be put through the procedure prescribed by Section 340 CrPC and to attract the procedure, the court should form an opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice to take action against him and merely because a person gave false evidence, it is not advisable or inexpedient to take action against him. 35. 35. In the case of Johnson vs. State of Kerala, reported in 1996 CRI.L.J. 2338, a learned Single Judge observed that though holding of preliminary enquiry is not mandatory but discretionary, the court should see whether the person has given false evidence intentionally and the court should also form an opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made into the offence. 36. In the case of Abdul Kalam vs. State of Tripura, reported in (2002) 1 GLR 378, this court observed that the statements of witness, recorded by a magistrate Under Section 164 CrPC, during investigation is an auxiliary evidence either to contradict or to support the substantive evidence recorded during trial by the trial court and such statement, recorded under Section 164CrPC, cannot be taken as evidence during trial. 37. In the case of Bijoy Kumar & others vs. State of Assam, reported in (1996) 2 GLR 373, a learned Single Judge of this court held that statement of a witness recorded under Section 164CrPC is not a substantive piece of evidence, it can only be used to contradict or corroborate a witness. Laying down the significance of the statutory provision under Section 164 CrPC, the learned Judge observed:- 14. One significant aspect which needs to be noted is that almost all the above witnesses had their statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC which should have put the trial court on guard while assessing and evaluating their evidence. It is not to suggest that their evidence is to be discarded, but it must be approached with caution. The mere fact that the police secured statements of witnesses under Section 164 CrPC in view of expediency or anticipating possibility of being won over would not make them unreliable solely on this ground (See Dhanabai vs. State of T.N., AIR 1980 SC 628 ). It is of course open to the court to accept the evidence of a witness, whose statement was recorded under Section 164 CrPC but the salient rule of caution must always be borne in mind, such witnesses feel tied to their previous statement given on oath and have but theoretical freedom to depart from the earlier version, a prosecution for perjury could be the price of that freedom to tell the truth. See Balakram vs. State of U.P., AIR 1974 SC 2165 . See Balakram vs. State of U.P., AIR 1974 SC 2165 . All that is necessary is a cautious approach on the part of the court which is all the more necessary when almost all witnesses (as in the instant case) are subjected to this tying up process. 38. In the case of Md. Ahmed Ali & others vs. State of Assam, reported in (1998) 1 GLR 455, a Division Bench of this court observed that statement recorded, under Section 164 CrPC, is not a substantive piece of evidence and that it can only be used to contradict or corroborate the makers thereof. 39. In the case of Mutum Iboton Singh vs. Moirangthem Yalma Singh, reported in AIR 1963 Man 21, it has been held that statement of witness recorded, under Section 164 CrPC does not amount to evidence in any stage of judicial proceeding within Section 193 IPC. 40. In light of the above principles of law, laid down by the Courts, I now proceed to examine if the petitioners, while giving evidence, before the trial Court, gave false evidence. 41. Sri Bimal Das, who deposed as PW.1 in the sessions trial, in his cross-examination, made by the prosecution, after declaring him hostile, denied the suggestion, put to him, that he made the ejahar implicating the accused, namely Sri Bhanu Das aforesaid. In his evidence, he further stated that, the FIR was written by someone and as ordered by the O/C, Jatrapur police station, he had put his signature therein. According to this witness, he read up to Class-III. Admittedly, the FIR was not written by him. His evidence, that the FIR was lodged by someone and that he had put his signature therein, on being ordered by the O/C of the Jatrapur police station, remained unchallenged. The Police Officer, at whose instance, the FIR was signed by the informant i.e. the petitioner No.1, has not been examined by the prosecution. Non-examination of the said Police Officer, certainly caused prejudice to the petitioners. The Police Officer, at whose instance, the FIR was signed by the informant i.e. the petitioner No.1, has not been examined by the prosecution. Non-examination of the said Police Officer, certainly caused prejudice to the petitioners. There is nothing on record to show that, copy of the FIR, which was lodged by the petitioner No.1, was furnished to him, immediately after receipt of the same, as required by the provision of Section 154(2) Cr.P.C. Therefore, in absence of any evidence that the copy of the FIR was furnished to the petitioner, who claimed to have put his signature in the FIR, written by some other person, it cannot be held that the petitioner i.e. the informant was aware of the contentions made in the said FIR. That apart, in order to show that the contention made in the FIR, was known to the petitioner No.1 and that the same was written as per his dictation, it should have been established, by adducing evidence, that the same was read over to such maker and that the contents thereof were true to his knowledge. In the absence of any such evidence, as in the present case, it is not safe to conclude that he made the statement as mentioned in the FIR. Therefore, it cannot be held that the petitioner No.1 had mentioned, in the FIR aforesaid, that he was told by the deceased that the accused, namely Sri Bhanu Das, had assaulted her. Therefore, mere failure of the present petitioner, while giving evidence as PW.1, to support the contention made in the said FIR, in the face of the above stated facts and circumstances, can't conclusively lead to hold that he had given false evidence, by departing from the contentions made in the FIR. 42. Sri Bishnu Das (PW.2), Sri Monoharan Das(PW.3), Sri Sudhir Das(PW.4, i.e. father of the deceased), Smti Basanti Bala Das (PW.5, i.e. the mother of the deceased), Sri Subal Chandra Das (PW.6), Sri Kshitish Das (PW.7), Smti Gita Rani Das (PW.8), Sri Malin Das (PW.9), Sri Laxman Chandra Das (PW.12), Sri Amar Chandra Das (PW.13), Sri Hari Mohan Das (PW.14) and Sri Kshetra Mohan Das (PW.16), were the non-official witnesses, who were examined in the said sessions trial. None of the said witnesses, including the parents of the deceased, who appeared in the place of the occurrence, immediately after the incident, stated anything involving accused, Sri Bhanu Das. To be more specific, none of the said witnesses, stated that the deceased, immediately after the incident, had disclosed that, she was assaulted by Sri Bhanu Das. Out of the said witnesses, the present petitioners, namely, (1)Sri Subal Chandra Das, (2)Sri Kshitish Das, (3)Smti Gita Rani Das and (4)Sri Kshetra Mohan Das, were produced before the learned SDJM, Sonamura, West Tripura (PW.15) for getting their statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is the case of the prosecution that, the said witnesses (i.e. the petitioners in this petition) in their said statements, made under Section 164 Cr.P.C., before the P.W 15, stated that the deceased had disclosed before her death, regarding involvement of accused, Sri Bhanu Das. As the said witnesses retracted their statements, made under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the courts below held them guilty of giving false evidence, and, accordingly, convicted them under Section 193 IPC. 43. There is no dispute that the statements i.e. Ext. Nos.9, 12 and 17 were made by the petitioners, namely, Sri Subal Chandra Das, Sri Khitish Chandra Das and Khetramohan Das under Section 164 CrPC and the said statements reveal that the deceased had told them that she was assaulted by Bhanu Das. Of course, Smt. Gita Rani Das, in her statement under Section 164 CrPC vide Ext. No.14, did not make any such disclosure. What she stated, in her statement, under Section 164 CrPC, was that the deceased had told her that she became pregnant through Bhanu Das and that the deceased, 10/12 days prior to her death, told her that her menstruation was stopped. Smt. Gita Rani Das i.e. the petitioner No.8, in her evidence given as PW 8, stated that the deceased did not tell her anything regarding her pregnancy. The petitioners, namely, Sri Subal Chandra Das (PW 6), Sri Khitish Chandra Das (PW 7) and Sri Khetramohan Das 9PW 16) in their evidence, given in the Sessions case, stated that, on their arrival at the place of occurrence, they found the dead body of the deceased. They were declared hostile and cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution. The petitioners, namely, Sri Subal Chandra Das (PW 6), Sri Khitish Chandra Das (PW 7) and Sri Khetramohan Das 9PW 16) in their evidence, given in the Sessions case, stated that, on their arrival at the place of occurrence, they found the dead body of the deceased. They were declared hostile and cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution. They denied the suggestions, put to them by the prosecution, that they were told by the deceased that she was given dao blows by Mr. Bhanu Das. 44. The petitioner No.1, who deposed as PW 6 stated that while taking him to the court for getting his statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, police had threatened him and that the officer, who recorded the statement under Section 164 CrPC, did not disclose his identity. The petitioner No.3 who deposed as PW 7 stated that police had taken him to the Magistrate, putting him under threat and that the statement was not read over to him. The petitioner No.4, who deposed as PW 8 also in terms with the evidence of PW.6 and PW.7 stated that he was put to threat by police compelling her to give statement before the Magistrate and that the statement was not read over to her. The petitioner No.5, who deposed as PW 16, stated that he had made the statement, before the Magistrate, as per instruction of the police. He categorically stated that he did not know that the officer, who recorded his statement, was a Magistrate. Sri Keshab Das Majumder, the Officer-in-Charge, Jatrapur police station, who completed the investigation was not examined in the said Sessions trial. Therefore, the statements of the said witnesses, that they were threatened by police officer, compelling them to give statement, in the alleged way, before the Magistrate, remained unchallenged/uncontroverted. In view of the allegation of threatening the petitioners to give statements under Section 164 CrPC, it cannot be held that they had truly and voluntarily made statement, under Section 164 CrPC, involving the accused aforesaid. 45. In the complaint case, which arose out of the complaint, lodged by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, the prosecution examined none except the said Addl. District Judge, who lodged the complaint. 45. In the complaint case, which arose out of the complaint, lodged by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, the prosecution examined none except the said Addl. District Judge, who lodged the complaint. Non-examination of the learned Magistrate, who recorded the statements under Section 164 CrPC and the police officer, who took the petitioners to the learned Magistrate, for getting their statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, caused much prejudice to the petitioners, in as much as they failed to substantiate their pleas aforesaid. The learned Addl. District Judge, who deposed as PW 1, stated that he lodged the complaint case, because, according to his judgment, the petitioners gave false evidence before him as a result of which, the accused person had to be acquitted in the Sessions trial. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the FIR, which gave rise to the Sessions case, was written by Sri Keshab Chandra Majumder as its scribe, and that the said scribe was not examined in the Sessions trial and also that the said scribe was the appropriate person to say as to whether the FIR was written as per the dictation of the informant (petitioner No.1) or not. Non-examination of the said writer of the FIR, indicates that the prosecution failed to establish that the FIR was written as per dictation of the informant and that the said informant was aware of the contentions made in the said FIR. The failure of the said informant to support the contents of the F.I.R, at the time of giving evidence, as PW 1, cannot be treated as suppression of the fact mentioned in the FIR. Therefore, it cannot be held that the said informant i.e. the petitioner No.1, by failing to support the statement, made in the F.I.R., gave false evidence in the Sessions trial. 46. The Addl. Sessions Judge, who deposed as PW 1 stated that the learned SDJM, who recorded the statement, did not administer oath and that there was no certificate to show that the statements were recorded on oath. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, in his evidence, given before the trial court, stated that the statements, recorded by the learned SDJM, Sonamura, under Section 164 CrPC, do not reveal that those statements were made voluntarily and that there was no certificate to that effect. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, in his evidence, given before the trial court, stated that the statements, recorded by the learned SDJM, Sonamura, under Section 164 CrPC, do not reveal that those statements were made voluntarily and that there was no certificate to that effect. The learned Sessions Judge further admitted that all the said witnesses, who gave statements, under Section 164 CrPC, stated, in the Sessions trial, that they were produced by the police, before the learned SDJM, Sonamura, under threat. He also admitted that had Sri Keshab Chandra Majumder been examined, it would have been revealed whether the present petitioners Nos.2 to 5 were produced before the learned Magistrate putting them under threat by the Police. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge also expressed his ignorance as to whether these witnesses, prior to their production before the Magistrate, were kept in police custody for three days and if, thereafter, they were compelled to make statements as per desire of the police. The learned Sessions Judge further stated that he did not give any findings in his judgment as to whether the other witnesses, in the Sessions trial, had given false statements or not. Fact remains that all the nonofficial witnesses, including the parents of the deceased, stated that they, on their arrival in the place of occurrence, found the deceased dead. None of them had stated that the deceased had disclosed anything before them. The learned Sessions Judge, in the judgment and order, dated 18-12-97, passed in the Sessions Trial (WT/S) of 1995, while acquitting the accused Sri Bhanu Das observed that the petitioners, by failing to support the contention made in the FIR as well as in the statements, made under Section 164, gave false statements before the court. 47. In view of the above referred decisions, in a trial for the offence under Section 193 IPC, the mere finding that the person concerned resiled from earlier statement, made under Section 164CrPC, cannot be sufficient to base conviction under Section 193 IPC. Law is well settled in this regard that, to hold a person guilty under Section 193 IPC, it must be determined as to whether the earlier statement was false or true. If the earlier statement is found to be false, then the person cannot be held liable for resiling from such statement. Law is well settled in this regard that, to hold a person guilty under Section 193 IPC, it must be determined as to whether the earlier statement was false or true. If the earlier statement is found to be false, then the person cannot be held liable for resiling from such statement. In the case of Thomman (supra), the learned Single observed-Beamount, C.J. has stated half a century ago in Ningappa vs. Emperor, AIR 1941 Bom 408: ( 1942 (43) Cri LJ 167) that 'no doubt, a man making a statement on oath before a Magistrate under Section 164 should speak the truth; but if he does not, the least he can do is to tell the truth when subsequently he goes into the witness box. To prosecute a man who has resiled from a false statement made under Section 164 is to encourage him in the belief that it pays to tell a lie and stick to it. It is far better that a man should escape punishment for having made a false statement under Section 164 than that he should be induced to believe that it is to his interest h9owever, false the statement may have been, to adhere to it, and thereby save himself from prosecution. The danger of such a course leading to the conviction of innocent persons is too great to be risked.' Those observations stand in good stead even now despite the lapse of five decades.' 48. Therefore, unless it is proved that the earlier statement, made by the witness, was true no conviction can stand under Section 193 IPC only on the ground that a different version has been given before the trial court. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that the statements, made by the petitioners, under Section 164 CrPC, were true. Rather, all the petitioners, who gave statements under Section 164 CrPC, categorically stated that they were threatened by police compelling them to give statements before the Magistrate and, as discussed earlier, their version that they were compelled to give false statements, on being threatened by police, remained unchallenged. 49. In view of the above it stands established that the said statements, under Section 164 CrPC were made under compelling circumstances. 49. In view of the above it stands established that the said statements, under Section 164 CrPC were made under compelling circumstances. Therefore, the statements given by them being false, their failure to support such false statement, at the time of deposing before the trial Court, cannot lead to hold that they gave false evidence before the trial court. 50. In light of the above discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that the courts below committed gross illegality, resulting miscarriage of justice, by holding the petitioners guilty of giving false evidence and thereby convicting and sentencing them for the offence under Section 193I.P.C. Hence, I find sufficient merit in this petition requiring interference by this Court. Therefore, this revision petition is allowed. 51. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence are set aside. The petitioners are acquitted. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged. Return the lower court records. Petition allowed