(1.) These are two Civil Revision Petitions preferred against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge. Tuticorin, dated 14th November, 1975, allowing C.M.A.122 and 123 of 1974, preferred before him against the order in I.A. 117 and 79 of 1974 respectively. O.S. No. 197 of 1972 was a suit pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Srivaikuntam. When the suit was pending and before it was disposed of, the sixth defendant filed I A117 of 1974 purporting to be under S. 479 A Crl. P.C. 1898, praying for recording a finding in the judgment that the 7th defendant in the suit had used forged documents knowing them to be forged and that it was expedient in the interests of justice and for the eradication of the evils of perjury and fabrication of false evidence that he should be prosecuted by laying a complaint before a competent court of law for the offences under Ss. 463 and 471 I.P.C., The same sixth defendant filed I.A.79 of 1974 against the same 7th defendant for a similar relief mentioning the offence as one under S. 471, I.P.C. Both these applications were dismissed by the learned District Munsif by order dated 23rd April 1974. By the time the applications were dismissed, the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, had come into force and thereafter, the applicant (6th defendant) filed C.M.A. 122 and 123 of 1974, on the file of the Sub Court, Tuticorin which court was the appellate court with reference to the Court of the District Munsif in question. The learned Subordinate Judge, by hit impugned order dated 14th November 1975, allowed the two C.M.As. and stated as follows in the conclusion of his judgment:
(2.) For the purposes of understanding the point raised, it is necessary to refer to certain statutory provisions. S. 471, I.P.C. which was the Section under which the two applications filed before the learned District Munsif, wanted a prosecution to be launched reads as follows--
(3.) Two other procedural sections which to be referred to are S. 476(1) and S. 479-A(1) of Crl.P.C.,1898--