The necessity of a preliminary inquiry and recording of satisfaction regarding deliberate or intentional falsehood before initiating a prosecution for perjury, and the importance of providing an opportunity for the accused to be heard before initiating proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

1. Present criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 27.02.2019 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Auraiya in Session Trial No.57 of 2019 (State Vs. Puttan Singh @ Sripal) related to Misc. Case No.130 of 2016 under Sections 193 & 195 of I.P.C., P.S.-Ajeetmal, District Auraiya.

2. By the impugned order, the charge under sections 193 & 195 I.P.C. was framed against the revisionist.

3. As per facts of the case, Additional Sessions Judge, Auraiya passed the judgment and order dated 11.08.2016 in S.T. No.113 of 2005 (State Vs. Machlu Dohre and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 95 of 2005, under Sections 304, 336 I.P.C., P.S. Ajeetmal, District Auraiya whereby the accused persons were convicted under Sections 304 & 336 I.P.C. and were sentenced accordingly. On 12.08.2016 in the light of above judgment dated 11.08.2016 Misc. Case No.130 of 2016 (State Vs. Puttan Singh @ Sripal) under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was registered against witness Puttan Singh s/o Hardev Singh and a notice was issued to him mentioning the facts that in his examination-in-chief as P.W.-2 in S.T. No. 113 of 2005 above he had supported the prosecution case, while in the cross-examination recorded after two years of the examination-in-chief, he did not support the prosecution version, thus in the cross-examination he was declared hostile and the State Counsel was permitted to cross-examine him. The court concerned found that the statement of the witness in the examination-in-chief and in the cross-examination was contradictory, so the witness Puttan Singh was ordered to appear in the Court on 16.08.2016 and to reply as to why not a proceeding be started against him for giving contradictory/false evidence.

4. Even after the service of notice Puttan Singh did not appear in the court on 16.08.2016 and 22.08.2016, so non-bailable warrant was issued against him. On 26.08.2016 also, Puttan Singh remained absent and again a non-bailable warrant was issued against him fixing the date 31.08.2016. On 31.08.2016, Puttan Singh appeared but did not file any reply/ objection, so on the same date a complaint under Section 193 and 195 of I.P.C. was filed by Additional District and Sessions Judge against him in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate.

5. On the same date, the Chief Judicial Magistrate registered this complaint. As the case was triable by the court of Sessions, warrant under Section 209 Cr.P.C. was made and after providing copies, the case was fixed for committal on 21.09.2016. Meanwhile, Misc. Application No.75 of 2016 was moved by Puttan Singh. The file was sent to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, from there Puttan Singh was released on bail. On 09.01.2019, the Chief Judicial Magistrate found the case to be triable by court of Sessions and, thus, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. File was sent to the Sessions Court. On 27.02.2019, learned Sessions Judge, Auraiya after hearing the parties framed charge against Puttan Singh under Sections 193 and 195 of I.P.C.

6. Against this order of framing charge, the present revision has been preferred wherein it is argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that a show-cause notice under Section 340 Cr.P.C., calling explanation from the revisionist fixing next date on 22.08.2016 was issued and when revisionist did not appear on the date fixed, non-bailable warrant was issued and when on 31.08.2016 he appeared before the court he was taken into judicial custody. Thereafter, show cause notice under Section 193 and 195 Cr.P.C. was served and case was directed to be transferred to the Judicial Magistrate, Auraiya for compliance of the order. The Chief Judicial Magistrate registered the complaint and remanded the accused under Section 209 Cr.P.C. Meanwhile, the revisionist was released on bail. The case was committed to the court of Sessions wherein the charge was framed.

7. It is further argued that from perusal of order dated 31.08.2016, it is clear that on 31.08.2016 when