ORDER : Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J. The Revision has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity 'the Cr.P.C ') against the judgment dated 18.06.2009 in Crl.A.No.18 of 2009 on the file of the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate, Excise Court, Ongole vide judgment in C.C.No.53 of 2007 dated 27.01.2009 against the petitioners/A2 to A5. 2. A1 Ambati Chinnammai was died and the case against her was abated before the learned Trial Court. 3. As the petitioners and A1 had not supported the case of the prosecution in S.C.No.79 of 2004 on the file of Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Ongole, the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, while convicting the accused therein ordered for prosecution of the petitioners for resorting to perjury as contemplated under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , (for short 'the I.P.C'). Ironically, the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Ongole instead of adopting procedure contemplated under Sec.195 of 'the Cr.P.C .,' he himself gave a direction to the Station House Officer, Santhanuthalapadu to register a case for the offence under Section 193 of 'the I.P.C.,' vide Ex.P1. Based on the direction of the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Ongole the Station House Officer, Santhanuthalapadu registered the copy of the judgment in S.C.No.79 of 2004 as a case in Crime No.79 of 2005 for the offence punishable under Section 193 of 'the I.P.C'. The learned Trial Court after due trial found the petitioners guilty for the offence under Section 193 of 'the IPC ' and passed the sentence. The learned Appellate Court also, as observed supra, confirmed the judgment. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 5. Sri V.V.N. Nasimham, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on a plain reading of Section 195 of 'the Cr.P.C .,' in juxtaposition with Section 193 of 'the I.P.C.,' the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Ongole, had erred in directing the Station House Officer, Santhanuthalapadu, to register a case against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 193 of 'the IPC '. The learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Ongole, ought to have either directed any Court subordinate to it or the Chief Ministerial Officer of the Court authorizing him in writing or the Presiding Officer himself in writing made a complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police, Santhanuthapadu for initiating appropriate proceedings and requested to allow the revision case. 6. Per Contra, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, also fairly submits to pass appropriate orders as per the merits of the case. 7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record. 8. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.18 of 2009 on the file of the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 9. For better understanding and appreciation of the case, it is opposite to extract the relevant provisions of 'the I.P.C.,' and 'the Cr.P.C '. Section 193 of 'the I.P.C.,' reads as follows: "193. Punishment for false evidence. — Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabri- cates 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, Explanation 1.—A trial before a Court-martial is a judicial proceeding. Explanation 2.—An investigation directed by law preliminary to a proceeding before a Court of Justice, is a stage of judicial proceeding, though that investigation may not take place before a Court of Justice. Illustration A, in an enquiry before a Magistrate for the purpose of ascertaining whether Z ought to be committed for trial, makes on oath a statement which he knows to be false. As this enquiry is a stage of a judicial proceeding, A has given false evidence. Explanation 3.—An investigation directed by a Court of Justice according to law, and conducted under the authority of a Court of Justice, is a stage of a judicial proceeding, though that investigation may not take place before a Court of Justice. As this enquiry is a stage of a judicial proceeding, A has given false evidence. Explanation 3.—An investigation directed by a Court of Justice according to law, and conducted under the authority of a Court of Justice, is a stage of a judicial proceeding, though that investigation may not take place before a Court of Justice. Illustration A, in an enquiry before an officer deputed by a Court of Justice to ascertain on the spot the boundaries of land, makes on oath a statement which he knows to be false. As this enquiry is a stage of a judicial proceeding, A has given false evidence." 10. It is apposite to refer and extract for better understanding of the case Section 195 of 'the Cr.P.C .,' expressly states as follows: “ 195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. —(1) No Court shall take cognizance — (a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or (ii) of any abetment of, attempt to commit, such offence, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate; (b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, sections 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 (ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub- clause (ii),[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]. (2) Where a complaint has been made by a public servant under clause (a) of sub-section (1) any authority to which he is administratively subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of such order to the Court; and upon its receipt by the Court, no further proceedings shall be taken on the complaint: Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded. (3) In clause (b) of sub-section (1), the term "Court" means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of this section. (4) For the purposes of clause (b) of sub- section (1), a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of such former Court, or in the case of a Civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the principal Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction such Civil Court is situate: Provided that— (a) where appeals lie to more than one Court, the Appellate Court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the Court to which such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate; (b) where appeals lie to a civil and also to a Revenue Court, such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Civil or Revenue Court according to the nature of the case or proceeding in connection with which the offence is alleged to have been committed.” 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sh. Narendra Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar , [ 2019 (3) SCC 318 ] held at para Nos.10 and 11 that cognizance of the offence under Section 193 of 'the IPC .,' cannot be taken by the learned Magistrate on the basis of the private complaint as per Section 195 (1) (B) of 'the Cr.P.C '. 12. Narendra Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar , [ 2019 (3) SCC 318 ] held at para Nos.10 and 11 that cognizance of the offence under Section 193 of 'the IPC .,' cannot be taken by the learned Magistrate on the basis of the private complaint as per Section 195 (1) (B) of 'the Cr.P.C '. 12. In the instant case, the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Ongole instead of adopting the procedure contemplated under Section 195 (1) (B) of 'the Cr.P.C .,' i.e., either the Court making a complaint in writing or directing the officer of the Court by authorization in writing or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate, directed the Station House Officer, Santhanuthalapadu to register a case, which procedure is against the spirit of Section 195 of 'the Cr.P.C '. The learned Trial Court cannot take cognizance on the basis of the charge sheet filed by the Sub Inspector of Police Santhanuthalapadu. The legally permissible course available to the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Ongole was that either the Presiding Officer should have, in writing, made a complaint or authorized the officer of the Court in writing to make a complaint or directed the Court subordinate to the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge to make a complaint. Therefore, the learned Trial Court or the learned Appellate Court failed to point out this material procedural irregularity in lodging the complaint for taking cognizance for the offence under Section 193 of 'the IPC '. Therefore, the judgments of the learned Appellate Court and the learned Trial Court suffer from material irregularity. Therefore, they are unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 13. In the result, the criminal revision case is allowed setting aside the judgments of the learned Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.18 of 2009, and the judgment of the learned Trial Court in C.C.No.53 of 2007. The revision petitioners are acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 193 of 'the I.P.C'. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.