YOGESHCHANDRA PARMANEND GANDHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred under Section 351 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.10.2004 passed in Special (Corruption) Case No. 3 of 1991 by learned Special Judge, Navsari, convicting the present appellant-original complainant to undergo simple imprisonment of two months with a fine of Rs.300/- for the offence punishable under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) Briefly stated, the appellant is the original complainant who had lodged a complaint before the office of Anti Corruption Bureau, Valsad on 15.11.1990 against one Mohammed Yaverhussen Gulamhussen Shaikh inter alia alleging that the said accused who was working as Electrical Sub Inspector in the Mines and Energy Department at Navsari, accepted Rs.500/- and further demanded Rs.2000/- as illegal gratification for not raising any technical objection. For such alleged demand of illegal gratification, he lodged a complaint. In pursuance of the complaint, the Anti Corruption Bureau carried out the investigation and ultimately, filed a charge-sheet before the competent court. After conclusion of the investigation, the said accused was put to trial and after conclusion of the trial and hearing, the accused came to be acquitted. Thereafter, the learned Special Judge, resorting to the provisions of Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, served the show-cause notice to the present appellant-original complainant that in the deposition, he gave false and fabricated evidence and thereby, he committed the offence punishable under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Though such notice was served upon the appellant, but he did not respond to it and thereafter, straightway, the learned Special Judge vide order dated 30.10.2004, convicted the appellant by way of inflicting the sentence of two months' simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 300/-.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Zubin Bharda for the appellant read out the show-cause notice at Exh.80 which merely runs into 7-8 lines only and the only allegation revealing from the show-cause notice is inter alia that the present appellant-original complainant had given a false evidence while deposing before the Special Court. According to his submission, nowhere the learned Special Judge in the show-cause notice pointed out as to how the appellant has given a false evidence and no particular details were given to the present appellant so as to show cause to the notice issued to him and thereafter, straightway, without affording any opportunity of personal hearing, rendered the judgment and order of conviction and sentence as noted above. He further argued that since the provisions of Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contemplates summary trial and after such trial only, if the noticee is found to be guilty, then and then only, he could be punished for such offence. Unless, summary trial provided as envisaged in the aforesaid provisions of law is undertaken, the Court has no power to straightway inflict the sentence.