JUDGMENT

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. (Oral)

The petitioner is impugning the judgment dated 22.12.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal vide which his appeal against the judgment dated 05/06.04.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal whereby he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 02 years, was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner inter alia contends that while passing the impugned judgments both the Courts below failed to appreciate that no formal charges had been framed by the trial Court which had caused grave injustice to the petitioner. Section 340 Cr.P.C. mandated a preliminary inquiry before initiation of proceedings under the said provision, however, the trial Court had fallen into error by directly proceeding with the trial on a complaint filed under Section 193 Cr.P.C. In support of his submissions learned counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment passed in ' Sharad Pawar v. Jagmohan Dalmiya and others , 2013(2) SCC (Cri) 197 '. Learned counsel has, thus, argued that in the wake of the aforesaid procedural illegality, the entire trial stood vitiated and the conviction of the petitioner deserved to be set aside. He also asserted that even otherwise, there was no cogent evidence on record to sustain the conviction of the petitioner for committing perjury.

3. In the alternative, a prayer was made by the learned counsel for reduction of sentence awarded to the petitioner to the period already undergone.

4. Learned State counsel while vehemently opposing the submissions made by the learned counsel opposite contends that the petitioner was charge-sheeted by the trial Court and mere non-framing of formal charges would not in any manner vitiate the trial. He has further submitted that the provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C. did not mandate that in each and every case a preliminary enquiry was to be conducted. He argued that the petitioner had committed a grave offence of perjury before a Court, on oath, therefore, he did not deserve any leniency. In support of his submissions learned State counsel placed reliance upon a judgment passed in 'Criminal Appeal No.335 of 2020 titled as The State of Punjab v. Jasbir Singh, decided on 15.09.2022 '

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

6. This Court does not find any merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the Petitioner that since formal charges were not framed by the trial Court, the conviction of the petitioner deserved to be set aside.

7. It would be relevant to point out here that Section 464 Cr.P.C. provides that mere absence or any error or any irregularity in framing of charge would not vitiate the trial and invalidate the conviction of an accused, unless and until there has been a failure of justice due to said absence, error or irregularity.

8. In the present case, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has failed to satisfy this Court as to how non-framing of charges had resulted in failure of justice. Since the petitioner was fully aware of the case set up against him and had also been given due opportunity to defend himself, hence, there was no question of any injustice having been caused to him.

9. This Court also does not concur with the submissions made by learned counsel for the Petitioner that a preliminary inquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was mandatory in all cases. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jasbir Singh's case (supra) has held as under:-

'7. The reference order also simultaneously noted the observations in the Constitution Bench of this Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah (2005) 4 SCC 370, which was post the judgment in Pritish's case (supra) but prior to the judgment in Sharad Pawar's case (supra). In this behalf the extracted portion in 23 of the judgment reads as under :

"In view of the language used in Section 340 Cr.P.C. the Court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Sec