In Re: V.V.L. Narasimhamurthy vs Unknown on 12 August, 1953
"We are in entire agreement with the decision in AIR 1929 Mad 21 (A), which was followed in AIR 1932 Mad 253 (B), which again was followed in AIR 1936 Mad 89 (C), where the proposition of law has been laid down that parties should not be allowed to evade the provisions of Section 195(1) (b), Criminal P. C. by filing a complaint under another provision of the Penal Code if, clearly, an offence under Section 193, I. P. C. or any other section mentioned in Section 195(1)(b), Criminal P. C. has been committed. This view is supported not only by the three cases adverted to above but also in -- 'Antarvedi Sarma In re', AIR 1946 Mad 489 (F); AIR 1948 Mad 474 , (D); -- 'Srinivasa Ayyangar v. Ramasami Ayyangar', AIR 1945 Mad 9 (G); -- 'Subramania Ayyar v. Swamikannu Chetti', AIR 1933 Mad 413 (H); -- 'Somayya v. Satyanarayana', 1934 Mad WN Cr 134 (I); and -- 'Gopalaswami Kurukondar v. Emperor', 1935 Mad WN Cr 248 (2) (J)."