BENI RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(3.) I accordingly reject this revision. The stay order dated 26 -2 -1957 is vacated.