JUDGMENT 1. - The instant revision has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the order dated 8.6.2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gharsana whereby charge has been framed against the petitioner for the offence under Section 193 I.P.C. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 27.7.2001 taking cognizance against the petitioner is absolutely illegal and amounts to an abuse of the process of Court. He submits that the complaint has been filed by the learned Magistrate Mr. Ajay Kumar Bhojak in whose court the offence of giving false evidence (section 193 Cr.P.C.) was allegedly committed. Learned counsel submits that the judgment of Case No. 108A/98 was passed by the aforementioned Presiding Officer on 25.7.2001 and whilst concluding trial, the learned Magistrate directed the prosecution of Sukhdev Singh and the petitioner Jagdish for the offence under Section 193 I.P.C. for giving false evidence. 3. Learned counsel submits that it was incumbent upon the learned Magistrate to have filed complaint in another Court as per Section 340 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel submits that the learned Presiding Officer has taken upon himself to file a complaint in his own court and thereafter cognizance of the offence has also been taken by the same Presiding Officer. Learned counsel submits that course adopted by the learned Magistrate is impermissible and amounts to gross abuse of the process of the Court as the learned Judge has virtually became a Judge of his own cause. Thus, he contends that the order impugned deserves to be quashed. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the submissions. 5. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. Perused the order impugned. 6. Undisputedly, the offence under Section 193 I.P.C. is said to have been committed in the proceedings which were undertaken in the court of the Presiding Officer Mr. Ajay Kumar Bhojak. As such, if at all the petitioner was to be prosecuted for the offence of giving false evidence, then a complaint had to be filed under Section 195(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. read with Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. before a competent magistrate. Such complaint could not be filed by the Presiding Officer in his own court and thereafter the same Presiding Officer could not have taken cognizance against the petitioner. Thus, virtually the order taking cognizance amounts to the Presiding Officer acting as a Judge of his own cause. Such complaint could not be filed by the Presiding Officer in his own court and thereafter the same Presiding Officer could not have taken cognizance against the petitioner. Thus, virtually the order taking cognizance amounts to the Presiding Officer acting as a Judge of his own cause. Such a course of action is contrary to principles of natural justice. This Court would have been tempted to direct that a fresh complaint be filed against the petitioner but the petitioner was 65 years of age when the offence was allegedly committed. Therefore, permitting a fresh complaint to be filed after a period 12 years would not be expedient in the interest of justice. 7. Accordingly, the revision is accepted. The order impugned whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under Section 193 Cr.P.C. is quashed.Revision allowed. *******