PAWAN KUMAR GAUD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this Criminal Misc. petition, the prayer has been made to quash the notice under Sec. 344 Cr.P.C., issued against the petitioners vide impugned judgment dtd. 31/3/2022, passed by Special Judge, Sessions Court, Prevention of Corruption Act, Kota in Sessions Case No. 7/2020. Thereafter, separate misc. case No. 15/2022 has been registered.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that, a written report was submitted by the petitioner No. 1 before the anti-corruption bureau, Kota, stating therein that he is having 6 tractors/trolleys and is indulged in supply of bricks, cement, etc. He further stated in the complaint that a false case has been registered against him by the SHO of Police Station Seeswali vide case No. 173/2018 and his tractors/ trolleys are seized in this case. He further stated in the complaint that the concerned SHO is demanding Rs.8000.00 (Eight Thousand Rupees) per tractor on monthly basis. He does not want to give the bribe and he wants to get him caught red handed. On this written report trap proceedings were conducted and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were associated as independent witnesses. Bribe amount was handed over to one Jamnalal, who was acting as the agent of the SHO and this bribe amount was recovered from the possession of Jamnalal. On the basis of aforesaid trap proceedings, charge-sheet was filed against the SHO namely Satyanarayan Singh and his agent Jamnalal. During the process of trial, petitioners appeared in the witness box as P.W-9, P.W-13 and P.W-17 respectively but they did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. After hearing all the parties, learned Trial Court recorded acquittal of both the accused persons vide judgment dtd. 31/3/2022 and by the same judgment issued a show cause notice under Sec. 344 of C.r.P.C calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why they should not be punished summarily for the offence of giving false evidence.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that no such compelling circumstances were available before the Trial Court to concerned Court has to first form an opinion that the witnesses/petitioners appearing in the proceedings before it have knowingly or wilfully given or fabricated false evidence. Counsel further submits that mere reading of the Sec. would make it clear that the offence made punishable under Sec. 344 of C.r.P.C. is committed only when the witness had knowingly or wilfully given false evidence or had fabricated evidence with the intention that such evidence should be used in the proceedings before the Court. Counsel further submits that if act of the witnesses is not willful or intentional, it cannot constitute an offence liable to be prosecuted under Sec. 344 of Cr.P.C.