1. This is an appeal under Section 476B, Criminal Procedure Code, against an order made by the Sessions Judge of Kaira ordering a complaint to be filed for the offence of perjury with regard to statements made by Maneklal Garbaddas before the Additional Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad on November 20, 1925. Maneklal Garbaddas was examined as a witness at a trial held by the Additional Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad in a a case which was committed to the Sessions Court of Ahmedabad by the Resident First Class Magistrate at Borsad. The witness gave evidence in that 'case and the case was decided on November 21 1925.
2. By a Government Notification, dated October 6, 1925, after January 1, 1926, the District Judge of Kafra was constituted a Sessions Division distinct from the Sessions division of Ahmedabad under the t name of the Sessions Divisions of Kaira. An application was made by the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the Sessions case to which I have referred, to-the Court of Session at Nadiad on March 1, 1926. It was stated in the application that it was made to that Court as successor to the Court at Ahmedabad, and, alternatively, as a Court of superior jurisdiction to the Court of the committing Magistrate at Borsad before which also the offence was committed. The application related to certain statements made by this particular witness and another person, named Bai Reva, and it was made for action being taken under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Sessions Judge did not consider it proper to direct any complaint to be filed against Bai Reva, but ordered a complaint to be filed against Maneklal Garbaddas in respect of certain statements made by him as a witness in the course of the trial before the Additional Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad.
3. A point was raised before the learned Judge that that Court had no jurisdiction to direct a complaint to be filed in respect of an offence committed before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad. The learned Judge, however, took the view that as a separate Sessions Division of Kaira was constituted under the notification to which I have referred, that Court was really the successor of the Court before which the original case was tried, and as such had jurisdiction to make an order under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code.
4. The present appeal is preferred from that order. We have not heard the learned Counsel for the appellant on the merits, and we wish to make it clear that we express no opinion whatever as to the merits of the complaint ordered by the lower Court to be filed.
5. At the outset we have to consider the question of jurisdiction. It seems to me that the Court contemplated by Sections 195 and 476, Criminal Procedure Code, is the Court before which the offence is committed. The alleged offence is one of giving false evidence, and it is difficult to' see how the circumstance that from January 1, l926, the Kaira district was taken out from the Sessions Division of. Ahmedabad, and was constituted a new Sessions Division under the Criminal P.C, can make any difference to the question as to whether the Court contemplated by Section 476, Criminal P.C, is the Court before which the offence was committed. So far the present point is concerned, it is difficult to treat the Sessions Court at Kaira as successor to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad.
6. It would be perfectly open to the pressent applicant to move that Court or any successor of that Court at Ahmedabad for such action to be taken as that Court may think proper. But we are unable to agree-with the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge of Kaira that that Court has jurisdiction to direct a complaint to be filed with reference to this particular-offence which is said to have been committed in the course of judicial proceedings before the Additional Sessions Judge of Ahmedadad. On this ground, and on this ground only, we allow the appeal and direct a withdrawal of the complaint ordered to be filed by the lower Court. This will be, of course, without prejudice to any application that may be made hereafter to the Court at Ahmedabad with reference to this very matter.
7. I agree. I would only add that in the application to the Sessions Judge of Kaira, it was stated that the application was made to that Court as successor to the Court at Ahmedabad, or, alternatively, as a Court of superior jurisdiction to the one of the committing Magistrate at Borsad before which also the offence had been committed. It would be a different point to consider whether the Sessions Judge at Kaira is a Court of superior jurisdiction to the committing Magistrate at Borsad, which at that time was under the Sessions Judg of Ahmeclabad, but is now under the Sections Judge of Kaira. However, thaff point does not really arise in this case because the order of the Sessions Judge of Kaira distinctly refers to an offence committed by Maneklal in respect of a. statement recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad in the Sessions Case No. 91 of 1925, or to such them offence or offences as may be disclosed by the circumstances of the case. These latter words refer to other offences committed before the Additional Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad, and no reference is made to the proceedings in the Court; of the committing Magistrate at Borsad.