The Court of Sessions or Magistrate of the First Class has the power to initiate summary proceedings under section 344 of the Cr.P.C. for an offence punishable under section 193 of the I.P.C. committed before such a Court or in the presence of such a Court, notwithstanding the provisions of section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT - B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.:---This is a criminal writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and invoking the inherent powers of this Court under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. challenging the legality and validity of the show cause notice issued by the learned Special Judge under section 344 of the Cr.P.C. 1973 for an offence punishable under section 193 of the I.P.C. The facts giving rise, stated in brief, are as under:-

2.Case No. 16/94 came to be tried by the learned Special Judge at Latur, at the instance of the State of Maharashtra for offences under section 3 read with section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and in the said proceeding the present petitioner was one of the witnesses. The said case came to be decided by the learned Judge by his judgment and order dated 24-3-1999 and in the said judgment the learned Special Judge noticed that the present petitioner who is a wholesale dealer of Kerosene had given false evidence during the trial of the said case and therefore, the learned Judge thought it fit to try the petitioner summarily for giving false evidence in Essential Commodities Act Case No. 16/94. The learned Judge further observed that he thought it necessary and expedient to take action against the petitioner for offence punishable under section 193 of the I.P.C. by way of summary trial as contemplated under section 344 of the Cr.P.C. and accordingly he took cognizance of the offence and directed issuance of the impugned notice.

3.Shri Deshmukh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has advanced two main legal points namely (1) bar of section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Cr.P.C. 1973 operated in the instant case and the Special Judge had no powers to issue the impugned notice and such a notice can be issued only by a Magistrate on a complaint to him by the concerned Court. The second point that he has advanced is that even if it is presumed that the petitioner is guilty of an offence punishable under section 193 of the I.P.C., the same offence is to be tried and decided by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, only and it is not within the jurisdiction of the Special Judge to try such an offence. In support of his contentions he has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (Chandrapal Singh and others v. Maharaj Singh and another)1, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 1238 and a judgment of the Patna High Court in the case of (Chandra Kishor Jha etc. v. The State of Bihar)2, 1975 Criminal Law Journal 1939.

4.Shri Gaikwad, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the challenge to the impugned order and submitted that the order is legal and does not suffer from any errors apparent on the face of record. He submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case as appeared before the Special Court, he was justified, in invoking his powers under section 343 of the Cr.P.C. for summary trial by taking cognizance on the alleged offence committed by the petitioner during the course of his deposition in the case decided by the learned Special Judge.

5.In the case of Chandrapal Singh (supra) it was alleged that an offence punishable under section 193 of the I.P.C. was committed by filing a false affidavit before the Rent Control Officer and a complaint came to be filed by one of the parties to the proceedings on which cognizance was taken by the Magistrate and process was issued for an offence punishable under the said section of the Code. After analysing the provisions of section 195(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. and the status of the Rent Control Officer the Apex Court held that invoking the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court was an abuse of the process of law and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, ought not to have taken cognizance of the proceedings on the basis of a complaint filed by one of the parties. It was further observed that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence under section 193 of the I.P.C. on the complaint of one of the pa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document