IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.86 of 1994 Date of decision : May 30, 2008 Vikram Sharma and others …Appellants. Versus State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellants : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Appellants appeared as witnesses in a case, under Sections 148, 323, 395 read with Section 149 IPC, which was instituted by the police at the instance of one of them, namely Vikram Sharma. At the end of the trial, Sessions Court acquitted all the accused persons, who were prosecuted in the aforesaid case and made observations that the present appellants had given false evidence and made false charge against the accused persons, after having conspired with each other. Sessions Court ordered the police to take appropriate action against the appellants. Since the action against the appellants could not have been taken by the police, under Section 211 IPC, in view of the bar contained in Section 195 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… Cr.P.C, an application was moved by one of the accused persons, namely Kewal Krishan, under Section 340 Cr.P.C., requesting the Sessions Judge to file complaint against the appellants. After recording satisfaction, under Section 340 Cr.P.C., Sessions Judge allowed that application and passed the impugned order. Sessions Judge ordered that the appellants be prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 211 read with Section 120-B IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that once the accused in the case instituted by the police, at the instance of appellant Vikram Sharma, had been tried and the statements of Vikram Sharma and other appellants had been recorded, on oath, in the Court, as witnesses of the prosecution, there could not have been any question of ordering the prosecution of the appellants for the offence of false charging, punishable under Section 211 IPC. In support of the contention, he places reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Santokh Singh versus Izhar Hussain, AIR 1973 Supreme Court 2190, wherein it has been held that offence of perjury, punishable under Section 193/195 IPC and offence of false charging, punishable under Section 211 IPC, are not intended by the Legislature to overlap each other and that once the trial takes place and the person at whose instance prosecution takes place appears as a witness at the trial, stage for prosecution of such a complainant for offence, under Section 211 IPC, passes into the stage for prosecution for perjury, under Section 193 IPC. Since the submission …3… made by the learned counsel is supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court, referred to hereinabove, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order of the Sessions Judge is set aside. Appeal stands disposed of. May 30, 2008(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J