1. This is an application to revise the order of the Sessions Judge of Kistna. The contention of Mr. Rama Rao for the petitioner is that no appeal lay from the order of the Joint Magistrate as no complaint had been made by him. We have sent for the complaint; and from it appears that he complained of an offence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code against four persons. The complaint does not give the particulars of the offence, nor does it mention the offence which each of the accused persons is stated to have committed. A complaint ought to contain particulars of the offence with which a man is charged. Though in the Indian procedure, there is no such thing as a regular indictment as in the English procedure, yet a complaint ought to contain sufficient particulars as to the offence with which a man is charged, and in the case of an offence under Section 193 a complaint ought to mention the particulars, for Section 193 consists of two parts, one relating to false statements and the other to the fabrication of the false evidence. If it is a false statement that is complained of, then the false statement should be set out in detail. It should not be left to the Trying Court to find out what statements are false and what statements are not false. A complaint should always contain sufficient materials to enable the Trying Court to proceed to trial without going through a lot of records for the purpose of finding out whether certain statements made by the accused persons are true or not. The complaint being a very unsatisfactory one, we do not think it proper to interfere with the order of the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge has set aside the order of the Joint Magistrate and has directed him to withdraw the complaint on the ground that he did not give an opportunity to the persons against to prove their case in respect of the alleged fabrication of false evidence. Before taking action against a person for fabrication of false evidence, it is necessary that he should be given an opportunity to substantiate his allegations. In this case, this course was not adopted by the Joint Magistrate, and though the offences which the respondents are said to have committed are serious offences, we are not disposed to set aside the order of the Sessions Judge and to restore that of the Joint Magistrate for the simple reason that the complaint is a very unsatisfactory one; and it is not proper that en enquiry should be started on a complaint which does not give sufficient particulars of the offence with which the respondents are charged.
2. We decline to interfere in revision with the order of the Sessions Judge and dismiss the petition.