RAJWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been directed against order dated 16.09.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala whereby the appellants have been sentenced to imprisonment for one day till rising of the Court and penalty of Rs. 500/ - each with default stipulation has been imposed. The brief backdrop of this case is that FIR No.2 dated 06.01.2006 under Sections 376, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC") was registered in Police Station Mahesh Nagar, Ambala at the instance of Harsimran Kaur daughter of Rajwant Singh against one Amarjit Singh. During trial, Harsimran Kaur and Rajwant Singh were examined as prosecution witnesses and they took a complete somersault and failed to support the case of the prosecution. As a consequence, Amarjit Singh, indicted for the crime was acquitted of the offence by the learned trial Court. However, during the course of discussion, the learned trial Court heldthat the appellants examined as PW -3 and PW -4 during trial have knowingly and willingly given false evidence, therefore, they are required to be proceeded against under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "the Code").

(2.) A notice was issued calling upon the appellants to show cause as to why they should not be punished for giving false evidence, under Section 344 of the Code. The appellants, despite availing an opportunity to file reply to the said notice did not file reply. On the contrary, they requested the Court with folded hands that a lenient view may be taken in the matter. As the appellants did not controvert the allegations against them and made a mercy prayer for leniency, the impugned order was passed following summary procedure.

(3.) THE sole contention raised by counsel for the appellants is that the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala did not follow the procedure in compliance with the provisions of Section 344 of the Code and as a result the entire proceedings against the appellants and the penalty imposed upon them are vitiated. It is argued that the Court neither made any complaint setting out the allegations against the appellants nor the procedure prescribed for summary trials in view of Chapter XXI of the Code was followed. In support of his contention, he has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Narayanswami Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1971 2 SCC 182.