1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICAION NO. 198/2010 1 Gajanan s/o Sukhadeo Sabale, Age : 30 years, Occu. Agril. 2 Raosaheb s/o Ambadas Sabale, Age : 34 years, Occu. Agril. Both R/o Mahora, Tal. Jafrabad ...Applicants. Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Officer in charge of Jafrabad Police Station (Through P.P. Office, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad) ... Respondents. Mr. A.R. Shinde, Advocate for applicants. Mr. T.S. Lodhe,A.P.P. for respondent/State. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J Date : 26h August, 2010. ORAL ORDER:- 1 Heard. 2 This revision is filed against the order passed by the learned Extra Jt. Additional District Judge, Jalna dated 12/07/2010 in Sessions Case No. 160/2007, rejecting applicants’ application 2 seeking discharge of some of the offences alleged against them. 3 The facts of this case are quite peculiar and can be stated in short as under:- A Regular Criminal Case No.7/2005 was pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate at Jafrabad. In this case, the applicant No.2 was the complainant. On the complaint of applicant No.2, certain accused were being tried for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate was recording evidence in this case on 03/07/2007. At about 1.00 p. m., he started recording evidence of one witness by name Sanjay Sukhdeo Sabale. But at the time of cross examination, it was revealed to the learned Magistrate that the witness before him was not Sanjay Sukhdeo Sabale but his brother Gajanan the applicant No. 1 here. The learned Magistrate soon conducted a preliminary inquiry and realized that the applicant herein had committed offence of recording false evidence and he lodged his complaint. The police however, registered offence under Section 193, 194, 205 and 419 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code against the applicants. 3 4 In view of the fact that the offence punishable under Section 194 of Indian Penal Code is triable exclusively by Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. It is seen that on 7th October, 2009 the learned Sessions Judge, Jalna framed charge against the applicants under Sections 419, 193, 194, 205 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and directed them to be tried for such offences. Soon thereafter, the case was transferred to the Court of Extra Joint Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna. At that stage, the present applicants made an application that they can not be charged under Sections 193 and 194 of Indian Penal Code and consequently, they should be discharged from such offences and the case should be sent back to the Court of Judicial Magistrate (Fist Class), for trial. This application was rejected mainly because the applicants’ advocate was not present when the application was called for hearing. The question is, under what offences the applicants can be charged in a case like this. In my view, the provisions of Sections 193 and 205 of Indian Penal Code alone are attracted for the alleged Act committed by the applicants. The applicant No.1 was giving deposition in a case which was not tried for capital offences. It was tried for an offence of causing grievous hurt which is not capital 4 offence. So, Section 194 of Indian Penal code will not be attracted to the facts of this case. ORDER The revision is partly allowed. The applicants are discharged from the offence punishable under Section 194 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The learned Extra Joint Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna shall take further steps in the matter accordingly. The revision disposed of. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] task/