IMPORTANT POINT
A conviction for giving false evidence under Section 344 of the Cr.P.C. requires clear proof of willful falsehood and the trial court's satisfaction regarding the necessity of a summary trial, which was not established in this case.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate for the Appellant/convicted Accused who is de-facto Complainant in case under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ["PC Act"] and learned APP.

2. If an Accused is acquitted on account of lapses in investigation and lacunae in the evidence, Court cannot be blamed. However, when case results into acquittal due to ignorance of the Judicial Officer, it pains us. Similar thing has happened in this case. On one hand, by accepting the defence raised by the original Accused, trial Court acquitted Accused but on same evidence, convicted the Complainant.

3. In fact, this Appellant was instrumental in launching the prosecution under the provision of Sec. 7 and Sec. 13(1) (d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the PC Act against one Dattajirao Vasantrao Patil and Special Case No. 2 of 1993 was initiated in Court of Special Judge - Kolhapur. However, when the question of giving evidence had arisen, this Appellant has cleverly supported the case of the prosecution while giving examination-in-chief. However, when he was cross-examined by Accused Dattajirao V. Patil, he deposed that in fact he owes the amount to the Accused and whatever amount he has parted away on the date of the trap on 15/5/1992 was not towards the illegal gratification, but it was towards repayment of the loan.

4. When the trial Court appreciated the evidence in the said case, it has given benefit of doubt to said Dattajirao Patil. It is for the various reasons including the present Appellant and the panch witnesses not supporting the prosecution witness and defects in sanction. The said Accused was acquitted vide judgment dtd. 5/1/1998. It is placed on record. However, while acquitting the Accused, the trial Court on 5/1/1998 was pleased to issue show cause notice to the present Appellant by calling his explanation as to why he should not be punished under Sec. 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ["IPC"].

5. Show cause notice was issued on 7/1/1998. When the present Appellant gave an explanation to the show cause notice, the trial Court as per order dtd. 12/5/1998 has directed the Appellant to appear before him on 5/6/1998 for the purpose of explaining particulars of the offence punishable as per Sec. 344(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ["Cr.P.C."]. (at page No. 20 of the paper book). The particulars were explained on 17/6/1998 (at page No.7). Thereafter, after hearing both the sides, the trial Court was satisfied that wilfully and deliberately, the present Applicant has given false evidence and accordingly convicted him on 17 th June 1998 for simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs.250.00. Punishment is prescribed under Sec. 344 of Cr.P.C. The correctness of the said judgment is challenged by way of this Appeal. Submissions

6. I have heard learned Advocate Shri.Sarkar for the Appellant and learned APP. Learned Advocate Shri.Sarkar invited my attention to the evidence given by this Appellant and findings of the trial Court. Mr.Sarkar relied upon the following two judgments :-

a) Sanjay S/o Baburao Gitte Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 307 of 201 6 : 5/5/201 7 : Bombay High Court (Bench at Aurangabad).

b) Shri Manikrao s/o Shivram Wagh Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 699 of 2 006 : 16thFebruary, 2 019 : Bombay High Court (Bench at Nagpur).

7. Whereas, according to the learned APP, when the Complainant was knowing that he owes the amount to Mr.Patil, then why he has approached Anti Corruption Bureau and why he led them to organize the trap and persuaded them to conduct investigation and to file charge-sheet. According to him, this is an afterthought to help the Accused and decision of the trial Court does not require interference. Judgments

8. It is true that in the case of Sanjay Gitte (supra), the learned Single Judge of this Court has also dealt with similar controversy. While acquitting the Accused for matrimonial offence, the learned Sessions Judge held that the Appellant t