VARGHESE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was a witness in a sessions trial. The accused in that sessions case were acquitted by the Sessions Court. However, learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for giving false evidence in his court and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. Hence this appeal.

(2.) As the testimony of the appellant in the sessions trial was found to be false in certain respects, the Sessions Judge ordered for initiation of proceedings against him under S.344(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'). A Miscellaneous Case was then registered against him. When the accusation against him was read over to him, he pleaded not guilty thereto. No evidence was recorded. The appellant reported that he has no evidence. Learned Sessions Judge heard the arguments and pronounced the impugned order, as per which the appellant was convicted and sentenced.

(3.) It is evident that the learned Sessions Judge has not followed the procedure in accordance with law. S.344(1) of the Code provides that after taking cognizance of the offence, the court may "after giving the offender a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why he should not be punished for such offence, try such offender summarily........." . Sub-s. (2) says "in every such case the Court shall follow, as nearly as may be practicable, the procedure prescribed for summary trials." S.262 of the Code provides the procedure for summary trials. Sub-s. (1) says "in trials under this chapter, the procedure specified in this Code for the trial of summons case shall be followed except as hereinafter mentioned". Chap.20 of the Code deals with the trial of summons cases. S.254 says that when a magistrate does not convict the accused on his plea of guilty "the magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution, and also to hear the accused and take all such evidence as he produces in his defence". In this case, learned Sessions Judge has not followed the aforesaid procedure. No evidence has been taken. Without affording an opportunity to the appellant, to cross examine the witness whose evidence is to be used against the appellant, law forbids such evidence being used against him. As the procedure for summary trial has not been followed by the learned Sessions Judge, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.