IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 29TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 688 of 2000 CRA.120/1996 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY MC.2/1996 of ADDL.ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT-COUNTER PETITIONER: K.HARIDASAN S/O KUNHIRAMAN AGED 46 YEARS, DRIVER CHIRAKKAL AMSOM DESOM P.O.CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR KANNUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJETH ALI THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/02/2008, THE COURT ON 29/02/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. 'CR' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.688 OF 2000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of February 2008 ORDER This revision petition is at the instance of a witness who was examined as PW1 in a sessions case which was disposed of by the Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Thalassery acquitting the accused therein. 2. At the time of disposal of the case, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge took the view that PW1 (petitioner), PW3 and PW4 had deliberately given false evidence before the court and therefore they were liable to be proceeded against. Thereafter, the Assistant Sessions Judge registered a Miscellaneous Case and issued notice to them. In response to the notice, petitioner and the other two witnesses submitted their respective explanations. 3. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge considered the statements filed by the witnesses and passed an order on April 3, 1996 holding that petitioner was liable to be punished as per the Crl.R.P.No.688 OF 2000 :: 2 :: provisions of Section 344 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, petitioner was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one month. The other two witnesses were exonerated. 4. The above order was challenged by the petitioner before the Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.120/96. The learned Sessions Judge concurred with the finding entered by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge and dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision petition. 5. As noticed already, the Assistant Sessions Judge was not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner to the show cause notice. It is discernible from the order that petitioner had deviated from the version given by him before the police regarding the incident. It had also come on record that petitioner had given evidence before the court totally contrary to the version given by him before the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Whatever be the explanation, the fact remained that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge did not choose to give any credence to the contention taken by him before the court in response to the show Crl.R.P.No.688 OF 2000 :: 3 :: cause notice. But admittedly neither the petitioner nor the other two witnesses were tried as contemplated under Section 344 of the Code, relevant clauses which read thus: “344. Summary procedure for trial for giving false evidence.-(1) If, at the time of delivery of any judgment or final order disposing of any judicial proceeding, a Court of Session or Magistrate of the first class expresses an opinion to the effect that any witness appearing in such proceeding had knowingly or wilfully given false evidence or had fabricated false evidence with the intention that such evidence should be used in such proceeding, it or he may, if satisfied that it is necessary and expedient in the interest of justice that the witness should be tried summarily for giving or fabricating, as the case may be, false evidence, take cognizance of the offence and may, after giving the offender a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why he should not be punished for such offence, try such offender summarily and sentence him to imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or to fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both. Crl.R.P.No.688 OF 2000 :: 4 :: (2) In every such case the Court shall follow, as nearly as may be practicable, the procedure prescribed for summary trials. (3) Nothing in this section shall affect the power of the Court to make a complaint under section 340 for the offence, where it does not choose to proceed under this section. ” (emphasis supplied) 6. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge had proceeded to impose the sentence of imprisonment on the petitioner after rejecting the explanation given by him overlooking the procedure prescribed under Section 344 of the Code. The learned Sessions Judge also committed the same error. In fact it was observed by the learned Sessions Judge that since the petitioner had been allowed to give his explanation to the show cause notice, he was not entitled to contend that sufficient opportunity of hearing had not been given to him. The courts below had totally overlooked the provisions contained in Section 344 of Chapter XXVI. Undoubtedly it was obligatory that the procedure prescribed by the Code was followed before punishing Crl.R.P.No.688 OF 2000 :: 5 :: the petitioner. He ought to have been tried, albeit summarily before holding him guilty. 7. Therefore, the impugned order passed is set aside. The case is remitted to the Assistant Sessions Court, Thalassery for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Criminal revision petition is allowed. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) jes Crl.R.P.No.688 OF 2000 :: 6 :: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.688 OF 2000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ORDER Dated 29th Feb 2008