JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved of the order dated 19.10.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption Act Cases, Bikaner in Cr. Case No. 21/2001 whereby the learned trial Judge directed filing of a complaint against the petitioner for his trial for the offence under Section 193 of the I.P.C. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant submitted a complaint at the ACB Out Post, Sri Ganganagar regarding the Patwari Premraj having demanded bribe from him. A trap was laid on the complaint submitted by the appellant and the Patwari was trapped red handed while accepting bribe of Rs. 600/-. During investigation of the trap case, the appellant (complainant) was examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and he verified the allegations levelled by him in his complaint The prosecution filed a charge-sheet against Prem Raj for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. At the trial the petitioner in his sworn testimony before the Court turned turtle and was declared hostile. He resiled from the earlier statements given by him as well as his complaint. He totally denied the allegations levelled against the Patwari regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe. Accordingly, the learned trial Judge after holding an enquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. directed filing of a complaint against the petitioner for having given false evidence before the trial Court by the order dated 19.10.2012. The said order is subject to challenge in the instant appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Mania v. State reported in 1987 RLW 206 and submits that the petitioner's case is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision and thus the order impugned deserves to be set aside. 4. Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the petitioner was himself the complainant of the case. He submitted a written report for having the Patwari trapped in the case, he was also examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. during investigation and verified the allegations levelled in the written complaint. Thereafter when he was examined on oath at the trial, he turned hostile and totally resiled from his earlier version. 5. He submitted a written report for having the Patwari trapped in the case, he was also examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. during investigation and verified the allegations levelled in the written complaint. Thereafter when he was examined on oath at the trial, he turned hostile and totally resiled from his earlier version. 5. In reply to the notice issued to the petitioner under Section 340 Cr.P.C., a plea was raised that the statements were given by the complainant under the pressure of officers of Anti Corruption Bureau. On the basis of the said plea the judgment rendered in Mania's case (supra) is sought be to be applied to this case as well. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's case is covered by the decision rendered in Mania's case is fallacious. In Mania's case the accused was an illiterate person and was examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. during investigation. The explanation given by the accused in that case was that he was detained by the police and under the threat of being implicated as an accused in the case, he was pressurised to give the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. This Court took note of the fact that the deposition of Mania under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was to the effect that he saw the deceased being throttled by the accused. Upon examination on oath at the trial, he denied the allegation of the accused having throttled the deceased. The Court noticed that the trial Judge after examining the medical evidence concluded that the prosecution story regarding the deceased being throttled was unreliable and that the deceased died by drowning. In this view of the matter, it is evident that the statement of Mania recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. from which he resiled at the trial was by itself inaccurate. In that background, the Court reached to a conclusion that the prosecution of the witness for having given false evidence was not warranted. It was held that the possibility of illiterate person having been pressurised by the police to make the particular statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. could not be ruled out. 7. The present case is not such a case. The petitioner himself was the complainant of the case. The proceedings were initiated on the written complaint filed by the petitioner himself. It was held that the possibility of illiterate person having been pressurised by the police to make the particular statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. could not be ruled out. 7. The present case is not such a case. The petitioner himself was the complainant of the case. The proceedings were initiated on the written complaint filed by the petitioner himself. As such, the theory advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the petitioner having been pressurised to give a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the officials of the Anti Corruption Bureau cannot be accepted on the face of the record. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is completely different on facts and does not come to the appellant's aid at all. 8. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial Judge acted well within its jurisdiction whilst directing the petitioner's prosecution for having given false evidence.Resultantly, the appeal being bereft of any merit is rejected.Appeal dismissed. *******