P. Chandra Reddy, C.J.
1. The only question that arises in this case is whether sanction should be accorded to prosecute the respondent under Section 103 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The case for the prosecution is that the respondent, along with some others, was involved in a criminal case. On 20-12-1957, she was produced before the Judl. Second Class Magistrate, Hindupur, for recording her confessional statement and her statement was actually recorded the next day. A few days later, i.e., on 2-1-1958, she was tendered pardon by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Penu-konda who was duly empowered by the District Magistrate to do so. It is stated that she stuck to her previous statement, namely, that the offence was committed by the other accused in the case with her help.
But when she was cited as a prosecution witness in the committal Court on 4-2-1958, she went back upon it and denied knowledge of the commission of the offence. It appears that she adopted the same attitude even in the Sessions Court. There being therefore no evidence in support of the prosecution case all the accused were acquitted. It is represented that the Sessions Judge remarked that the version as given by the respondent both in the committal Court and in the Sessions Court was not shown to be an untrue one. That finding has not been challenged before us or in any appeal against the acquittal of the accused in the criminal case.
3. This petition is taken out for according sanction to prosecute the respondent as required by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code for an offence under Section 193, I. P. C. In support of this petition it is argued that if her statements before the Committal Court and the Sessions Court are true it follows as a necessary corollary that the confession made by her must be a false one and as such the prosecution is entitled to proceed against' her under Section 193, I.P.C., provided that the requisite sanction of this Court is given.
4. A preliminary objection is taken by Sri N. M. Sastry appearing for the respondent on the ground that in order to enable the prosecution to launch proceedings against the respondent under Section 193. I.P.C., it is necessary that the Court which, tried the case should have recorded a finding that the statements made by the person concerned were false and, in the absence of such a finding, the prosecution under Section 193, I.P.C. is unauthorised. This argument is based on Section 479-A of the Criminal Procedure Coda which reads thus :-
'(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 416 - 479 inclusive when any Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court is of opinion that any person appearing before it as a witness has intentionally given false evidence in any stage of the judicial proceeding or has intentionally fabricated false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of the judicial proceeding, and that, for the eradication of the evils of perjury and fabrication of false evidence and in the interests of justice, it is expedient that such witness should be prosecuted for the offence which appears to have been committed by him, the Court shall, at the time of the delivery of the judgment or final order disposing of such proceeding, record a finding to that effect stating its reasons therefor and may, if it so thinks fit after giving the witness an opportunity of being heard, make a complaint thereof in writing signed by the presiding officer of the Court setting forth the evidence which, in the opinion of the Court, is false or fabricated and forward the same to a Magistrate of the First Class having jurisdiction, and may, if the accused is present before the Court, take sufficient security for his appearance before such Magistrate and may bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate:x x x
We do not think that this section has any application to a case coming under Section 193, I.P.C. 479-A, Cr. P. C. comes into play only when a witness is sought to be proceeded against for perjurycommitted before it and that too when the Courthas to make a complaint under Section 476, Cr P. C.That provision is not attracted to Section 193. I.P.C. Thepreliminary objection is, therefore, overruled.
5. We shall next proceed to consider whether an accused who makes a confession which is alleged to be false comes within the ambit of Section 193 I.P.C. Before Section 193, I.P.C. could be invoked, it should be found that the person concerned has given false evidence. Can it be said that an accused who is alleged to have made a false confession has given false evidence within the meaning of Section 193, I.P.C, In our opinion, false confession by an accused cannot amount to false evidence.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor called our attention to the definition of 'Evidence' in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act. 'Evidence' means and includes :
1. all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence;
2. all documents produced for the inspection of the Court; such documents are called documentary evidence;
I It cannot be predicated that an accused making confessions under Section 164, Cr. P. C. is a witness within the scope of this definition. Nor has Section 157 of the Evidence Act which is called in aid by the learned Public Prosecutor, any bearing on the present enquiry. That again applies to a case where a witness is sought to be examined with reference to his earlier statements.
7. It follows that the terms of Section 193, I.P.C.are not fulfilled in this case. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.