The court emphasizes the necessity for adherence to mandatory procedural safeguards in summary trials for false evidence to ensure fairness and uphold the principle of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. The present Criminal Appeal is under Section 351 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) against the judgment and order of conviction dated 16.09.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Atrocity Case No.24 of 1998 whereby both the appellants who were the complainant and witnesses in the trial came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 344 of the Cr.P.C. allegedly for giving false evidence.

2. During the course of this appeal, the appellant No.1- Koyjibhai Himmatbhai died on 01.06.2016 who was the original complainant in the Atrocity case, and by an order dated 26.08.2025, the appeal qua appellant no.1 came to be abated. So now, the challenge to the judgment and order of conviction is by appellant no.2- Lakshmanbhai Koyjibhai Tadvi, a witness during the trial.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Shailesh C. Parikh by referring to the impugned order submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Vadodara on 16.09.2004 had passed the order acquitting 25 accused of Atrocity Case No.24 of 1998 considering them as innocent, while the complainant, i.e. the deceased appellant and the present appellant as witness were proceeded with an order, that a statement be recorded under Section 344 of the Cr.PC of both the witnesses.

4. Learned Advocate Mr. Parikh submitted by referring to the impugned order and statement recorded on the very same date of both the appellants, submitted that the learned Trial Court Judge has failed to follow procedure as prescribed before passing order under Section 344 of the Cr.PC.

5. Learned Advocate Mr. Shailesh C. Parikh has relied upon (1) Narayan Swamy v. The State of Maharashtra AIR (1971) SC 1789 (2) M.M. Pasricha v. The State of Punjab (1978) 1 ILR (P&H) 20 (3) Ambalal Bhavanishanker Upadhyaya v. Rasiklal Manilal Mehta and Others in Criminal Revision Application No.594 of 1986; (4) State of Gujarat v. Ambalal Lalji 2006 (1) GLR 208 (5) Yogendra Dashratlal Shah v. State of Gujarat (2008) 3 GLR 2541 (6) Mahila Vinod Kumari v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2008 SC 2965 (7) Decision of this Court dated 10.01.2017 in Criminal Appeal No.1495 of 2003 with Criminal Appeal No.1517 of 2003 (Ashwinbhai Ambalal Vyas v. State of Gujarat) (8) Decision of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam dated 24.06.2019 in Criminal MC No.1542 of 2019 (Sajan Mathew v. State of Kerala) (9) Decision of Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) dated 24.02.2021 in the case of Shriram S/o Nathu Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2021) 02 BOM CK 0022 and (10) Shakuntala Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another AIR 2021 SC 4384.

6. Referring to the above decision, it is vehemently argued by learned advocate Mr. Parikh that no opportunity had been given by the Trial Court to the appellants which is mandatorily provided by issuance of show cause notice. It is further submitted that the procedure is of summarily trying the accused so that the accused would have an opportunity to explain the evidence as considered by the learned Judge under Section 344 of the Cr.P.C. Learned advocate Mr. Parikh submitted that accused had to be tried in accordance with Chapter 21 of Cr.P.C which explains the power and procedure to be followed, and more specifically, learned ad