Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajwant Singh And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another on 14 January, 2014
Author: Rekha Mittal
Bench: Rekha Mittal
CRA-S-1630-SB-2007 1
IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-1630-SB-2007
Date of decision : 14.01.2014
Rajwant Singh and another
... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL
Present: Mr.K.S.Nalwa, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr.Rajeev Kawatra, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
REKHA MITTAL, J.(ORAL)
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 `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 held Davinder Kumar 2014.01.20 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1630-SB-2007 2 that 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").
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.
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. The State of Maharashtra, 1971(2) Supreme Court Cases, 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 be Davinder Kumar 2014.01.20 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1630-SB-2007 3 found 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.
The question which arises for adjudication is whether the Additional Sessions Judge was obliged to file a complaint against the appellants and only thereafter they could be tried by following the procedure prescribed for summary trials.
It appears that the appellants have raised such a plea oblivious of fact that a complaint is required to be filed only if the court chooses to Davinder Kumar 2014.01.20 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1630-SB-2007 4 proceed against a witness guilty of giving or fabricating false evidence in exercise of power under Section 340 of the Code for committing offence of perjury punishable under Section 195 and 196 of the Indian Penal Code. The judgment relied upon by counsel for the appellants in Naryanswami's case (supra) has got no bearing on the facts of the case in hand. In the said case, the Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 479-A of the Code instituted a complaint for prosecution of Dilawar and Narayanswami (appellant therein) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 195 and 196 IPC. The question posed in the appeal was whether the requirements of Section 479-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been complied with before instituting the complainant from which the appeal arises. Section 479-A quoted in the judgment is substantially different from the provisions of Section 344 of the Code now in force. Under Section 479-A, there was no provision for summary trial of a witness for giving false evidence as has been laid down in Section 344(1) of the Code. Section 479-A (1) of the Code empowered the Presiding Officer of the Court only to make a complaint in writing setting forth the evidence which in the opinion of the Court is false or fabricated and forward the same to a Magistrate of Ist Class having jurisdiction and the accused (witness) may be given an opportunity of being heard before making a complaint if the Court concerned thought it fit in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the appellants has cited the judgment in Narayanswami's case (supra) without appreciating that the provisions of Section 479-A and 344 of the Code are not pari materia rather they are substantially different. In this view of the matter, the appellants cannot derive any strength to their contentions Davinder Kumar 2014.01.20 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1630-SB-2007 5 from the ratio laid down in Narayanswami's case (supra).
The appellants virtually confessed their guilt and prayed for leniency in the matter. The Court concerned took a very sympathetic view of the matter, but still the appellants carried the matter in appeal which remained pending for over six years.
No other point was raised before me.
For the foregoing reasons, finding no merit, the appeal is dismissed.
(REKHA MITTAL) JUDGE January 14, 2014.
Davinder Kumar Davinder Kumar 2014.01.20 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document