The court emphasized the necessity of following established procedures in trials for perjury, ruling that failure to do so results in an unfair conviction.

JUDGMENT :

ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

1. In this appeal, there is challenge to the judgment and order of conviction dated 30.03.2005 recorded by learned 1st Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, holding appellant guilty of offence under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [Cr.P.C.].

CASE IN BRIEF IS AS UNDER

2. On charge of commission of offence under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC] and in the alternative, for offence under Sections 147, 302 r/w 149 of IPC, four accused namely, Mukhtar, Rafiqkhan, Shakirkhan, and Rahamatkhan were made to face trial before learned 1st Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad vide Sessions Case No. 16 of 2005. At trial, prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and also sought reliance on documentary evidence. After analyzing the oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Judge, by judgment and order dated 30.03.2005, acquitted all four accused from above charges. However, by same order, informant-present appellant Daud Khan was held guilty for commission of offence under Section 344 of Cr.P.C. and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for two months and to pay fine of Rs.200/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of 10 days. Above judgment and order recording guilt for perjury is the subject matter of the instant appeal.

SUBMISSIONS On behalf of the appellant:

3. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that four accused were chargesheeted by learned trial Judge for above sections, but they were acquitted. He pointed out that prosecution could not establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. That, complainant/ present appellant himself has not supported prosecution. He also emphasized that along with appellant/original complainant, other witnesses were also examined, but none of them had supported prosecution. However, according to him, only present appellant is singled out by learned trial Judge and questioned for giving false evidence.

4. Criticizing the procedure adopted by learned trial Judge in trying original complainant for perjury, he submitted that distinct procedure is provided in Cr.P.C. Such summary proceedings were not adopted by learned trial Judge. That, directly same court issued show cause notice and without considering the explanation, straightway guilt has been recorded. That, even above procedure was carried out and concluded on the same day. There was no proper and fair trial. According to learned counsel, for holding a person guilty of giving false evidence, there has to be a full-fledged trial. Appellant has not been given opportunity to cross-examine the Investigating Officer. Therefore, according to learned counsel, there being complete deviation from the established procedure, impugned judgment does not stand in the eyes of law to be legal and valid. In the alternative, he submitted that even otherwise, almost two decades have passed since rendering the judgment. At that time, complainant was of 36 years of age. As on today, he is almost 56 years of age. Therefore, considering such facts, he prays for either letting off the appellant by imposing fine, or extending benefit of probation.

On behalf of the State:

5. While opposing the above, learned APP submitted that appellant is original complainant. He set law into motion, claiming himself to the an eye witness. He retracted and only because of such resilement, judgment of acquittal was required to be rendered. That, his version in substantive evidence is contrary to his own report, on the basis of which crime was registered. He has admittedly given false evidence on oath and therefore, after getting convinced to that extent, learned trial court had initially issued him show cause notice and thereafter, considering his reply and say, conviction has been rendered. There is no deviation or infirmity in said procedure and so, learned APP prays to dismiss the appeal for want of merits.

ANALYSIS

6. Admittedly, present appellant was the original complainant on whose report, crime was regi