JITENDRAKUMAR SURYAKANT PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short question of law regarding interpretation of Section 344 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is involved in this revision. The factual backdrop in which this instant revision has been filed may shortly be narrated as under :

(2.) The two revisionists Jitendrakumar Patel and Kamlesh Patel were prosecution witnesses in Sessions Case No.82/97 and 133/97. Six accused were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad for offences punishable u/s. 302 read with Section 34 and Section 120(B) I.P.Code. These two revisionists who were witnesses for the prosecution attended test identification parade in which they correctly identified the assailant before the Executive Magistrate in such parade. However, when they were examined as prosecution witnesses before the Addl. Sessions Judge they turned hostile and refused to identify the assailant. In the two trials some of the accused were acquitted and some were convicted. The State preferred Appeal against the portion of the judgment under which some of the accused were acquitted. The accused were convicted, preferred Appeal against order of conviction before this Court. Both the Appeals are said to be pending.

(3.) It further appears that certain observations were made by the trial Judge while deciding the Sessions Case and observed that prima facie the two revisionists committed offence of purgery. Accordingly show cause notice was issued to them purporting to be notice u/s.344(1) Cr.P.C. In that notice they were asked to explain why they should not be punished for committing the offence of purgery. From such notice it is obvious that the Court below did not choose to act u/s.344(3) Cr.P.C. rather it took cognizance of the offence to be tried as summary trial and show cause notices were issued to the revisionist.