IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the trial court's authority under Section 344 Cr.P.C. to address perjury, requiring a clear opinion of intentional falsehood before action is taken.

ORDER :

1. By way of this Criminal Misc. petition, the prayer has been made to quash the notice under Section 344 Cr.P.C., issued against the petitioners vide impugned judgment dated 31st March 2022, passed by Special Judge, Sessions Court, Prevention of Corruption Act, Kota in Sessions Case No. 7/2020. Thereafter, separate misc. case no. 15/2022 has been registered.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, a written report was submitted by the petitioner no. 1 before the anti-corruption bureau, Kota, stating therein that he is having 6 tractors/trolleys and is indulged in supply of bricks, cement, etc. He further stated in the complaint that a false case has been registered against him by the SHO of Police Station Seeswali vide case no. 173/2018 and his tractors/trolleys are seized in this case. He further stated in the complaint that the concerned SHO is demanding Rs.8000/- (Eight Thousand Rupees) per tractor on monthly basis. He does not want to give the bribe and he wants to get him caught red handed. On this written report trap proceedings were conducted and petitioner nos.2 and 3 were associated as independent witnesses. Bribe amount was handed over to one Jamnalal, who was acting as the agent of the SHO and this bribe amount was recovered from the possession of Jamnalal. On the basis of aforesaid trap proceedings, charge-sheet was filed against the SHO namely Satyanarayan Singh and his agent Jamnalal. During the process of trial, petitioners appeared in the witness box as PW-9, PW-13 and PW-17 respectively but they did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. After hearing all the parties, learned Trial Court recorded acquittal of both the accused persons vide judgment dated 31.03.2022 and by the same judgment issued a show cause notice under Section 344 of Cr.P.C. calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why they should not be punished summarily for the offence of giving false evidence.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that no such compelling circumstances were available before the Trial Court to issue show cause notices under Section 344 of Cr.P.C. to the petitioners. Counsel submits that as per the provisions, the concerned court has to first form an opinion that the witnesses/petitioners appearing in the proceedings before it have knowingly or wilfully given or fabricated false evidence. Counsel further submits that mere reading of the section would make it clear that the offence made punishable under Section 344 of Cr.P.C. is committed only when the witness had knowingly or wilfully given false evidence or had fabricated evidence with the intention that such evidence should be used in the proceedings before the court. Counsel further submits that if act of the witnesses is not willful or intentional, it cannot constitute an offence liable to be prosecuted under section 344 of Cr.P.C.

4. Per Contra learned public prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and supported the proposed action against the petitioners.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. The Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with the essential ingredients for invocation of Section 344 Cr.P.C. and its object, in the decision reported as (2008) 8 SCC 34 Mahila Vinod Kumari v. State of M.P. held as under:

“8. In the present case, on the basis of the allegations made by the petitioner, two persons were arrested and had to face trial and suffered the ignominy of being involved in a serious offence like rape. Their acquittal, may. to a certain extent, have washed away the stigma, but that is not enough. The purpose of enacting Section 344 CrPC corresponding to Section 479A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as “the old Code”) appears to be to further arm the court with a weapon to deal with more flagrant cases and not to take away the weapon already in its possession. The object of the legislature underlying e