Basi Reddy, J.
1. These revision petitions are preferred against the orders of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, affirming the orders of the Judicial II Class Magistrate, Nandikotkur, directing the laying of complaints against the petitioners for offences under Section 193, Indian Penal Code.
2. The facts which gave rise to these petitions are as follows .-
The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandikotkur,. had filed a charge-sheet against three persona viz., Narayana Chetty, Ramalingam Chetty and their sister Eswaramma under Section 364 and Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, alleging that they had abducted one Salu Miah and caused: his death on the night of 25-7-1955 at Voddet Manu. The three petitioners were cited as eyewitnesses to the occurrence. During the investigation the Sub-Magistrate of Kurnool recorded the statements of these petitioners under Section 164, Criminal Procedure Code. In those statements the petitioners stated on oath that they had witnessed the attack on Salu Miah by the three accused and gave details of the attack.
3. The preliminary enquiry in the case XP. R. C. No. 12 of 1955) was conducted by the Judicial II Class Magistrate of Nandikotur, at which the three petitioners were examined by the prosecution. They, however, went back on their former statements, denied all knowledge of the incident and alleged that they had made their statements under Section 164, Criminal Procedure Code under threat and coercion by the Police and some villagers. At the conclusion of the enquiry, the case was committed to the Court of Session. The order of commitment was made on 30-1-1956. The case ultimately ended in the acquittal of the accused therein.
4. On 9-11-1956 the Judicial II Class Magistrate, Nandikotkur, who had held the preliminary enquiry in P. R. C. No. 12 of 1955, acting under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, filed complaints under Section 193, Indian Penal Code, against the three petitioners before the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Kurnool, after recording a finding that the petitioners had intentionally given false evidence before him at the preliminary enquiry in P. R. C. No. 12 of 1955.
5. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the Judicial II Class Magistrate, Nandikotkur, has acted without jurisdiction in laying the complaints long after the termination of the proceedings before him, inasmuch as under Section 479A(1), Criminal Procedure Code, the complaints should have been made, if at all, at the time the order of commitment was passed, i-e., on 30-1-1956 and the Magistrate has acted illegally in filing the complaints on 9-11-1956.
6. The argument appears to me to be unanswerable. Section 479A, which is a self contained Section, was inserted by the Amendment Act XXVI of 1955. Sub-section (1) of Section 479-A empowers the Court to make a complaint against a witness only at the time of the delivery of the judgment or final order disposing of the judicial proceeding in which the offence of giving false evidence or of fabricating false evidence has been committed; Sub-section (3) says that no appeal shall lie from any finding recorded and complaint made under Sub-section (1); and Sub-section (6) makes it clear that the provisions of Section 479-A alone are applicable and not the provisions of Sections 476 - 479 for the prosecution of a witness who has given or fabricated false evidence.
7. In these cases the complaints in question were admittedly made long alter the termination of, the committal proceedings, and are therefore, made without jurisdiction. These revision petitions are accordingly allowed, and the complaints are directed to be withdrawn.