JUDGMENT : S.I Pujahari, J. - I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. 2. This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 06.08.2015 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Jeypore in G.R. Case No.454 of 2011 in framing charges under Sections 420/193 of I.P.C. against the petitioner. 3. The brief facts of the case is that on 15.8.2007, a case under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered on the report of the present petitioner alleging that one subrat Mukherjee, Inspector Legal Metrology, Ganpur Rayagada was demanding bribe of Rs. 17,500/- for stamping seven numbers of Nuzle installed in the petrol pump run by his wife.On 16.08.2007, the petitioner produced cash of Rs. 17,500/- before the vigilance, a trap was laid and the bribe money of Rs. 17,500/- demanded and accepted by Subrat Mukherjee which was recovered from him. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against Subrat Mukherjee. But during trial, the informant (the present petitioner) falsely deposed before the Court that Subrat Mukherjee had not demanded' the money for himself but had asked for compound fees. it is also alleged that on 04.01.2008, the petitioner applied before the S.P., Vigilance, Koraput Division, Jeypore for release of the bribe money which he had produced before the Vigilance during preparation. On 21.03.2008, the petitioner received back Rs.17,500/- from D.S.P., Vigilance executing proper acknowledgment. It is alleged against the present petitioner that in order to avoid payment of Government fees he lodged F.I.R. alleging demand of illegal gratification by Sri Mukherjee. Moreover, receipt of Rs. 17,500/- by the petitioner from the Vigilance shows that he knowingly cheated the Government causing wrongful loss to the Government and corresponding gain to him by not paying the required tax. The D.S.P., Vigilance, Nabarangpur Unit lodged F.I.R. on 15.09.2010 before the I.I.C., Jeypore Town Police Station containing these allegations, basing on which, the present case was registered and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet under section 420/193 of I.P.C. was placed against petitioner. Vide order dated 06.08.2015, the learned J.M.F.C., Jeypore framed charges under sections 420/193 of I.P.C. against the petitioner which order is under challenge in this criminal revision. 4. Vide order dated 06.08.2015, the learned J.M.F.C., Jeypore framed charges under sections 420/193 of I.P.C. against the petitioner which order is under challenge in this criminal revision. 4. During course of hearing, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no material on record to frame charge under Section 420 of I.P.C. Moreover, the offence under Section 193 is an offence against public justice and in absence of any complaint from the competent Court, no prosecution is maintainable Hence, the order passed by the Court below is not sustainable in law and liable to be set aside. 5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned order. 6. For better appreciation of the case, Section 193 of I.P.C. and relevant portion of Section 195 Cr.P.C. are reproduced below : "193. Punishment for false evidence-Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine, and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine." 195 (1). No Court shall take cognizance - (a)(i) xxxx xxxx (ii) xxxx xxxx (iii) xxxx xxxx (b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, Section 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or. (i) xxxx xxxx (ii) xxxx xxxx (except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate." 7. Here, the prosecution allegation is that during examination under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. in Vigilance case the petitioner had categorically stated that on demand he handed over the bribe money to Subrat Mukherjee. Here, the prosecution allegation is that during examination under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. in Vigilance case the petitioner had categorically stated that on demand he handed over the bribe money to Subrat Mukherjee. It is also alleged that on 03.09.2009 during the trial of that Vigilance case the present petitioner falsely deposed in his cross-examination before the Court of the Special Judge, Vigilance that 'Sri Mukherjee had not demanded the money for himself but asked for compounding fees". Whether the petitioner intentionally gave false evidence in any stage of that judicial proceeding was the question to be decided by that Court. Similarly, even if any proceeding Linder Section 193 I.P.C. was felt necessary, then a complaint in writing of that Court or by such Officer authorised by that Court or by some Superior Court was necessary as per the provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. as quoted above, but no such complaint is forthcoming. Hence, framing of charge under Section 193 of I.P.C. against the petitioner is not sustainable in law. 8. So far as the offence under Section 420 of I.P.C. let me reproduce Section 420 of I.P.C. which reads as thus : "420.Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property - Whoever cheats and, thereby 'dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine." 9. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that in order to avoid the Government fees, the petitioner had lodged F.I.R. before the Vigilance alleging demand of bribe by Sri Mukherjee. It is also alleged in the present case that receipt of Rs. 17,500/- from D.S.P., Vigilance shows that the petitioner knowingly cheated the Vigilance Department causing wrongful loss to the Government and wrongful gain to himself by not paying the required fees/tax. There is no document on record to show if in fact the petitioner was liable to pay any Government dues. Sri Mukherjee, the then Inspector of Legal Metrology, Gunpur was the best person to state about the liability of the petitioner to pay any Government dues. There is no document on record to show if in fact the petitioner was liable to pay any Government dues. Sri Mukherjee, the then Inspector of Legal Metrology, Gunpur was the best person to state about the liability of the petitioner to pay any Government dues. But, for the reasons best known the Investigating Officer of this case has not cited Sri Mukherjee as a charge-sheeted witness. 10. Admittedly, the present petitioner had produced cash of Rs. 17,500/- before the Vigilance during preparation of the vigilance case and during detection he paid the said amount to Sri Mukherjee which was recovered from Sri Mukherjee. In usual course the petitioner was entitled for reimbursement of that money from the State. The seized tainted money was under control of the Court who was in seisin over the Vigilance case. It is not the allegation of the prosecution that after receiving Rs. 17, 500/- from the D.S.P. Vigilance on 21.03.2008, again the petitioner received the seized tainted money from the Court/Vigilance Department. Merely basing on the testimony of the petitioner during his cross-examination in Court in the vigilance case, the present F.I.R. was lodged alleging that the petitioner had liability to pay Government dues and to avoid the same he had lodged false F.I.R. alleging demand of bribe by Sri Mukherjee. It is beyond the scope of this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction to give any finding if the averments' of the F.I.R. in the Vigilance were correct or the testimony of the petitioner during cross-examination in Court was correct. 11. On a combined reading of the materials on record and for the reasons discussed above, there appears no prima-facie case under section 420 of I.P.C. to frame charge against the petitioner. Accordingly, the order dated 06.08.2015 framing charge under Sections 420/193 of I.P.C. against the petitioner is not sustainable in law. 12. Therefore, this criminal revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 06.08.2015 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Jeypore in G.R. Case No.454 of 2010 in framing charges under Sections 420/193 I.P.C. against the petitioner is set aside. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. Final Result : Allowed