Strict adherence to the procedures under Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C. is required for offences committed in relation to pending proceedings, and failure to follow these procedures can vitiate the entire proceedings.

1. The revision petitioners who are arrayed as A1 and A2, have come forward with the above revision challenging the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Pollachi, Coimbatore District dated 16.12.2002 made in CC.No.453/2002 convicting A1 for the offence under Section.205 read with 109 IPC and convicting A2 for the offence under Section.205 IPC and sentencing each of the accused to undergo 4 weeks rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default, to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment for their respective convictions.

2. The case of the prosecution is that A2 has impersonated the witness No.2 in a case in C.C.No.546 of 2001 for the offence under Section 379 IPC and deposed falsely in the said case and A1 has abetted the offence committed by A2 and thereby, both of them have been implicated for the offences under Sections 205 read with 109 IPC [A1] and 205 IPC [A2].

3. It is seen that the case was registered by the respondent police on the basis of the complaint preferred by the Head Clerk of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Pollachi, in Crime No.392 of 2002 for the offences under Sections 419 and 420 IPC. The said FIR was registered on 11.07.2002. After the completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed for the offences under Sections 205 r/w 109 IPC as against A1 and under Section 205 IPC as against A2. Both the accused have been furnished the copies as per the provision under Section.207 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate being satisfied to the effect that there is a prima facie case made out against the revision petitioners, framed the charges against A1 for the offence under Sections 205 read with 109 IPC and against A2 for the offence under Section.205 IPC. The learned Trial Magistrate read over the charge and explained to the accused and questioned whether they are pleading guilty of the offences charged against them or claim to be tried. Both the accused, viz., the revision petitioners pleaded guilty for the offences. They have filed a Memo to that effect. They have stated that A1 studied B.A., M.Ed., and A2 is a B.A., graduate. The learned Magistrate, on consideration of the Memo filed by the revision petitioners pleading guilty for the above said offences, convicted and sentenced them as stated above. Aggrieved against the said order, the present revision is filed by the revision petitioners.

4. Mr.P.Saravanan, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, mainly contended that since the offences are said to have been committed in relation to a proceeding pending in the Magistrate court and particularly, in respect of the offences referred under Section 195[1][b][i] Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate ought to have followed the procedure contemplated under Section 340 Cr.P.C. It is pointed out that as per Section 195[1][b][i] Cr.P.C., the offence under Section 205 IPC is also mentioned apart from the other offences and as far as the case on hand is concerned, the revision petitioners have been implicated mainly for the offence under Section 205 IPC and such being the position, the procedure to be adopted is only as contemplated under Section 340 Cr.P.C. It is further contended that as per the provision under Section.340[3][b] Cr.P.C., such a complaint is to be preferred and signed by the Presiding Officer of the court or by such officer of the court as the court may authorise in writing in this behalf. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the procedure contemplated under Section 340(3)(b) of Cr.P.C. is not at all followed in the instant case and a complaint was preferred by the Head Clerk of Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Pollachi, and the First Information Report was registered only for the offence under Sections 419 and 420 IPC. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that even in the said complaint it was specifically alleged that the offences alleged against the revision petitioners have