R. Dayal, J. - (1.) BENI Ram filed a complaint against Deokinandan and others. It was dismissed by the magistrate. The accused were acquitted. The magistrate then took action under Section 479A, Code of Criminal Procedure, and ordered that a complaint be lodged against Pyare Lal peon for an offence under Section 193, IPC against Dr. Vijadhari for offences under Sections 193 and 196, IPC and against Beni Ram for Offences under Sections 211 and 193, IPC. Beni Ram filed Cr. Rev. No. 119 of 1956 in the court of the Sessions Judge of Aligarh against the order for filing a complaint under Section 193, IPC against him. This revision was rejected by the Sessions Judge. He has now come up in revision to this Court.
(2.) I see no force in this revision. The learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the evidence given by the applicant was false. He had therefore the jurisdiction to make a complaint under Section 479A, Code of Criminal Procedure. He did mention in dealing with the question of filing a complaint against Pyare Lal peon for an offence under Section 193, IPC, that he deemed it very expedient in the interest of justice that the complaint should be filed. He did not repeat this expression when dealing with the case of Beni Ram. It is however to be presumed that he did file the complaint thinking that it was expedient in the interest of justice and did not repeat that expression to avoid repetition in the order. In view of the magistrate's opinion that the applicant had given false evidence, it could not be but in the interest of justice and for the eradication of perjury that a complaint was made. Any omission to use this expression in the order itself cannot be fatal. It has been urged that Section 479A, Code of Criminal Procedure is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution, as the magistrate is given unfettered discretion to take action under Section 476, Code of Criminal Procedure or under Section 479A, Code of Criminal Procedure in cases of intentionally giving false evidence or fabricating false evidence and no appeal is allowed against an order under Section 479A while an appeal is allowed against an order under Section 476, Code of Criminal Prcedure. The contention is not sound in view of Sub -section (6) of Section 479A, Code of Criminal Procedure which is: No proceedings shall be taken under Sections 476 to 479 inclusive for the prosecution of a person for giving or fabricating false evidence, if in respect of such a person proceedings may be taken under this section. This clearly means that if the circumstances justifying a complaint under Section 479A exist action is to be taken under that section alone and not under Section 476, Code of Criminal Procedure. In other words, either the facts of a case do not justify a complaint under Section 479A, Code of Criminal Procedure, though they may justify a complaint under Section 476, Code of Criminal Procedure, or if they do justify a complaint under both the sections, action will be taken under Section 479A and not under Section 476 Code of Criminal Procedure. No discretion is left in the magistrate to take action under either of the sections and therefore no question of discrimination arises with respect to the provisions of Section 479A, Code of Criminal Procedure. I therefore hold that Section 479A, Code of Criminal Procedure is not hit by Article 14 of the Constitution.
(3.) I accordingly reject this revision. The stay order dated 26 -2 -1957 is vacated.;