This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in STC No. 134 of 2004 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bheemavaram, West Godavari District.

2. On the basis of a common report made by the petitioners to him, the SI of Police, I Town PS, Bheemavaram, registered a case in Cr.No.219 of 2000 under Sections 420, 384, 506(2) IPC and after investigation, laid charge sheet against one Cheerala Venkatarathana Reddy, which was taken cognizance as C.C.No.47 of 2001 by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bheemavaram. Petitioners, who were cited as PWs.1 to 7, in the said CC No.47 of 2001, did not support the prosecution case, and were treated as hostile witnesses and denied their having made statements as in Exs.P.2 to P.6 recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate while disposing of the said C.C. observed as under:

“Before parting with the Judgment, I am constrained to hold that PWs.1 to 7 being the public servants, working in the cadre of hostel Welfare Officers intentionally and knowingly gave false evidence on oath and it is most unbecoming conduct on their part. Due to unbecoming conduct of these witnesses a real culprit could escape from the clutches of law. Therefore, it is a fit case to prosecute PWs.1 to 7 for the offence punishable under Section 344(1) Cr PC with a view to eradicate the evils of perjury and in the interest of justice. Hence, a complaint for giving false evidence is taken cognizance of under Section 344(1) Cr PC against PWs.1 to 7, arraying them as the accused 1 to 7 by this Court. Office is directed to serve copy of complaint to the individuals”

In pursuance of the same STC No.134 of 2004 is registered against the petitioners. As stated earlier, this petition is filed to quash the proceedings in the said

STC.

3. The contention of Sri E.V. Bhagiratha Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners is that since no show cause notice as mandated by Section 344(1) Cr PC, was issued by the learned Magistrate to the petitioners, proceedings in STC No. 134 of 2004 against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. It is also his contention that since principles of natural justice that a complainant should not be a judge on his complaint, would be violated if the same Magistrate who passed the order takes cognizance of the offence, complained of by him, the learned Magistrate in fairness to the petitioners should have lodged the complaint before another Magistrate or should have followed the procedure prescribed by Section 195(1)(b)(4) Cr.P.C. In support of his contentions, he relied on PYDI LAXMANNA V. DUPALA KRISHNAMURTHY(1) GOTTIMUKKALA SURAYANARAYANA RAJU V. STATE(2) and MD. LBRAHIM V. B RAMARAO(3). His next contention is that since the statements under Section 161 Cr PC, are neither made on oath nor are signed by the -witnesses, and can be used only for contradictions as per Section 162 Cr.PC, the learned Magistrate was in error in launching prosecution against the petitioners on the premise that those statements, are true, and relied on JANARDHANAN VS. STATE OF KERALA(4), in support of the said contention.

4. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

5. Since Section 344(1) Cr PC contemplates a summary procedure for convicting persons who committed perjury, and since Section 344(3) Cr.PC saves the power of the Court to order prosecution for perjury, it is clear that the trial Court before whom false evidence is given has two options open i.e., (i) follow the summary procedure prescribed under Section 344(1) Cr PC; or (ii) follow the procedure prescribed under Section 344(3) Cr PC and cause a complaint being filed under Section 340 Cr PC. In fact a Division Bench of Bombay High Court in BALSHIRAM RAMBHAU AWATE V. STATE OF MAHARASTRA(5), held that a trial Court which discovers perjury could take action summarily under Section 344(1) and punish the person who gave false evidence then and there,