JASKARAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision has been preferred by Jaskaran. The record shows that Jaskaran was cited as a witness in sessions case No. 54 of 1997, State versus Kalu arising out of case FIR No. 197 dated 8. 10. 1996 under Section 15 of the ndps Act. The judgment of trial Court re-veals that the evidence of the witness was to be recorded on 23rd January, 1998. He is said to have not supported the prosecution case. On 23rd January, 1998 itself, the following notice was served upon him:

(2.) AFTER issuing a notice under Section 193 IPC read with Section 344 Cr. P. C. without taking any evidence, witness was convicted under Section 193 IPC read with section 344 Cr. P. C. to two months simple imprisonment. Aggrieved against the same, present revision petition has been filed. In the judgment, it has been recorded by the trial Judge as under:

(3.) THE approach adopted by the trial judge in no way can be appreciated. Power to punish under Section 344 Cr. P. C. and section 193 Cr. P. C. are distinct. Separate procedure for trial of both has been specified. Section 344 Cr. P. C. call for summary trial, whereas under Section 193 I. P. C. offender is to tried as warrant case. Petitioner was to be tried under Section 344 Cr. P. C. in summary procedure, Section 193 IPC requires that the petitioner should have been charged after holding an Criminal Revision no. 100 of 1998 4 inquiry under Section 340 cr. P. C. for trial of offence under Section 193 i. P. C. no notice can be issued, only charge could be framed. Section 344 Cr. P. C. vests powers in the Courts to summarily try and punish the accused. It is for this reason that section 344 Cr. P. C. prescribes sentence also. But in the present case, conviction has been recorded under Section 193 IPC read with section 344 Cr. P. C. , which in no way can be sustained. Either learned Special Judge should have convicted the petitioner under section 344 Cr. P. C. and ought not to have invoked Section 193 IPC. Once, the Judge opted to try the petitioner for the offence under Section 193 IPC, it was incumbent upon him to hold an inquiry under Section 340 Cr. P. C. and then to frame a charge and try the offender for a warrant case as minimum sentence prescribed under Section 193 ipc is three years.