JUDGMENT

Pushpa V. Ganediwala, J. - The challenge in this appeal under Section 351 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as the "Code") is to the judgment dated 30/06/2008 in Misc. Criminal Application No. 135/2008 arose out of the Sessions Trial No. 34/2007 (State Vs. Santosh) by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad, whereby the appellant was tried summarily and convicted for the offence of 'perjury' under Section 344 of the Code, and is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.200/- (rupees two hundred only), in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days.

2. Brief facts leading to the present appeal are as under :

i. On 08/03/2007, the appellant lodged a report at the Police Station, Pusad, stating therein that the accused, i.e., his brother, committed murder of deceased Kiran (sister in law of the accused and the appellant) with an 'axe'. Crime No. 58/2007 came to be registered against the accused, and after investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Pusad. It was tried as Sessions Trial No. 34/2007, which resulted into acquittal of the accused mainly on the ground that the star witness, i.e., the appellant, who was the informant and the sole eye-witness to the alleged murder, turned hostile.

ii. In the judgment, the learned trial Court observed that the appellant had intentionally given false evidence to save his brother from the charge of murder. The learned trial Court, in the said judgment, also recorded its satisfaction that it is necessary that the appellant should be tried summarily for giving false evidence. The learned trial Court took cognizance of the offence of perjury, and issued a show cause notice and summons to the appellant as to why he should not be punished for giving false evidence under Section 344 of the Code.

3. In response to the show cause notice and the summons, the appellant appeared before the Court and submitted his written explanation stating therein that due to police pressure and threats of involving himself in the offence of murder, he has stated so before the Police and the Magistrate. The learned trial Court found it unreliable and proceeded for summary trial. The learned Court filled up the summary sheet and explained the particulars of the offence to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty. The learned trial Court recorded his plea, and after hearing the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, convicted the appellant for the offence of perjury and sentenced him as above. This judgment is impugned in the present appeal.

4. Shri Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, mainly argued on the following three points :

a. The learned trial Court, while delivering judgment, failed to record the substance of evidence, which is mandatory in a summary trial if the accused pleads not guilty.

b. The learned trial Court failed to give an opportunity to the appellant to prove his defence.

c. The learned trial Court failed to record the finding with regard to which of the statements of the appellant was false.

5. As against this, Shri Khan, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State, while supporting the impugned judgment of the trial Court submitted that the trial Court has followed due procedure as contemplated in law. The learned A.P.P. urged for dismissal of the appeal.

6. I have considered the submissions on behalf of both the sides, and perused the record.

7. Without going into the merits of the case, first and foremost, it is necessary to examine as to whether the learned trial Court has followed the procedure as contemplated in law for convicting the appellant under Section 344 of the Code, and whether any prejudice is caused to the appellant if the same is not followed. For ready reference, Section 344 of the Code is reproduced below :

"344. Summary procedure for trial for giving false evidence.- (1) If, at the time of