JUDGMENT This revision by original complainant is directed against the revisional order passed by learned Sessions Judge, North Goa allowing the revision preferred by the accused whereby the learned Judge quashed and set aside the complaint filed by the present applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 181, 463 and 464 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. 2. It was the applicant's case that the non-applicants accused persons as well as the applicant claim through one Shankar Pal. The applicant claims to be grandson of Shankar. The accused persons, suppressing existence of the applicant, made a declaration before the Notary Ex-Officio Sub-Registrar omitting to show that the applicant is one of the heirs of Shankar. This declaration was sought to be used by the accused nos.4 to 6 for applying for getting their names mutated in the properties. The applicant, therefore, filed complaint before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bicholim. Learned Magistrate examined the complainant as well as two other witnesses including the Sub-Registrar and then proceeded to issue process for the offences punishable under Sections 181, 463 and 464 read with Section 34 of IPC by his order dated 12/04/2007. 3. Aggrieved thereby the accused persons preferred revision which came to be allowed by an impugned order. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the applicant. 5. Section 181 of I.P.C. provides that a person legally bound by oath or affirmation to state the truth on any subject to any Public Servant or other person authorised by law to administer such oath or affirmation, makes to such Public Servant or other person any statement which is false, is liable for punishment as prescribed in the said Section. 6. In this case, there is nothing to show that the Notary Ex-officio Sub-Registrar was required to administer any oath or affirmation to the persons, who made the declaration excluding the applicant from the heirs of Shankar. 7. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted relying on entry no. 15 in Appendix 5 of Family Laws of Goa, Daman and Diu, Volume II that the declarants who made declaration before the Notary are liable to be prosecuted in the case of false declaration or statement. In Portuguese Law, this was permissible. However, for prosecuting any person there has to be specific provision in either Penal Code or some other law which creates offence and makes it punishable. In Portuguese Law, this was permissible. However, for prosecuting any person there has to be specific provision in either Penal Code or some other law which creates offence and makes it punishable. Therefore, this entry no.15 in Appendix 5 in the book titled as Family Laws of Goa, Daman and Diu would not create an offence or make it punishable in any case. This entry would not result in amounting to Section 181 of I.P.C. Since in this case, there is nothing to show that the declaration was required to be made on oath or affirmation before the Sub-Registrar, it cannot be said that the accused persons committed the offence punishable under Section 181 of I.P.C. 8. As far as Sections 463 and 464 of I.P.C. are concerned, Section 463 makes forgery punishable. Section 464 defines making of false document. None of the claims of Section 464 of I.P.C. are attracted to the present case as has been elaborately discussed by learned Sessions Judge. It is, therefore, clear that the applicant's attempt to launch prosecution against the respondent accused, is thoroughly misconceived and the applicant would have to file appropriate penal proceedings for initiating action against the respondents for their alleged involvement in making false statement. 9. The application is, therefore, dismissed by giving liberty to the applicant to have the course of such other remedy as may be available to him under Law. Revision dismissed.