Lakshmana Rao, J.
1. The petitioner was the first defendant in O.S. No. 12 of 1937 on the file of the Sub-Court of Telficherry and on the application of the plaintiff an order was passed by the Subordinate Judge on 15th October, 1938, directing the defendants to produce certain records by 21st October, 1938, or file an affidavit if they were not available. The order was not complied with, and the Subordinate Judge closed the application with the following order:
It is to be regretted that the defendants have not complied with the order and the plaintiff may take such steps as he may find necessary.
2. An application under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was made to the Subordinate Judge on 8th November to file a complaint against the defendants for an offence under Section 175, Indian Penal Code, and some documents were filed by the petitioner on 18th November with an application to excuse his failure to produce them earlier. The documents were ordered to be received on 26th November after notice to the plaintiff, and the Sub-Court was abolished on 23rd December, 1938. The application under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was transferred to the District Court and it was dismissed on the 15th April, 1939, on the ground that Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code was not applicable. But a complaint was made under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the question is whether this complaint is competent. The District Court did not order the production of any document nor, as pointed out in Queen-Empress v. Seshayya I.L.R. (1889) 13 Mad. 24 can the alleged offence under Section 175, Indian Penal Code, be said to have been committed in the view or presence of the District Court. The Revision Petition is therefore allowed and the complaint will be withdrawn.