- (1.) THE present appeal has been directed against order dated 16.09.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala whereby the appellants have been sentenced to imprisonment for one day till rising of the Court and penalty of Rs. 500/ - each with default stipulation has been imposed. The brief backdrop of this case is that FIR No.2 dated 06.01.2006 under Sections 376, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC") was registered in Police Station Mahesh Nagar, Ambala at the instance of Harsimran Kaur daughter of Rajwant Singh against one Amarjit Singh. During trial, Harsimran Kaur and Rajwant Singh were examined as prosecution witnesses and they took a complete somersault and failed to support the case of the prosecution. As a consequence, Amarjit Singh, indicted for the crime was acquitted of the offence by the learned trial Court. However, during the course of discussion, the learned trial Court heldthat the appellants examined as PW -3 and PW -4 during trial have knowingly and willingly given false evidence, therefore, they are required to be proceeded against under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "the Code").
(2.) A notice was issued calling upon the appellants to show cause as to why they should not be punished for giving false evidence, under Section 344 of the Code. The appellants, despite availing an opportunity to file reply to the said notice did not file reply. On the contrary, they requested the Court with folded hands that a lenient view may be taken in the matter. As the appellants did not controvert the allegations against them and made a mercy prayer for leniency, the impugned order was passed following summary procedure.
(3.) THE sole contention raised by counsel for the appellants is that the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala did not follow the procedure in compliance with the provisions of Section 344 of the Code and as a result the entire proceedings against the appellants and the penalty imposed upon them are vitiated. It is argued that the Court neither made any complaint setting out the allegations against the appellants nor the procedure prescribed for summary trials in view of Chapter XXI of the Code was followed. In support of his contention, he has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Narayanswami Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1971 2 SCC 182. Counsel for the State, on the contrary, has submitted that even if any irregularity has been committed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, in the absence of any prejudice to the appellants, no fault can befound in the impugned order. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records. Counsel for the appellants has not disputed that the trial Court is empowered to initiate action under Section 344 of the Code against a witness appearing in proceedings before Court of Sessions or Magistrate of the Ist Class, who at the time of delivery of judgment or final order disposing of any judicial proceedings has expressed any opinion that any witness appearing in such proceedings had knowingly or willfully given false evidence or had fabricated false evidence with the intention that such evidence should be used in such proceedings. It is not denied that the trial Court may either try the said witness summarily under Section 344 (1) of the Code or proceed under Section 340(3) of the Code. In the case at hand, the trial Court at the time of delivering judgment of acquittal in favour of accused Amarjit Singh, expressed its opinion that the appellants had knowingly and willfully given false evidence and it is expedient in the interest of justice that they should be tried summarily for giving false evidence. Indisputably, a notice was served upon the appellants calling upon them to show cause why they should not be punished for committing offence for giving false evidence.;