JUDGMENT 1. - Heard Learned counsel for the parties. 2. In a case, under Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Satyaveer Singh and Sobhag Chand Mathur, petitioners in S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 506/96 and 474/96 respectively, appeared and were examined as prosecution witness. Both are the officers of the Supply Department. Both were declared hostile by the prosecution. The complaint in the case had been filed by their superior officer. While disposing of the main case, the learned Special Judge (Economic Offices), Jaipur held that they had knowingly and wilful), gave false evidence with intention that such evidence should be used in the case. The learned trial Judge recorded his satisfaction that it was necessary and expedient in the interest of justice that the petitioners be tried summarily for giving false evidence in the case. He accordingly took cognizance of the offence and directed that issue show cause notices be issued to them. The petitioner have challenged such directions of the learned trial judge through the present petitions. 3. It was pointed out that as per provision contained under Section 344(4) Cr.P.C., the trial under Section 344 Cr.P.C. should remain stayed till the disposal of S.B.Cr. Appeal No. 317/96, (Choutnmal and Gopal Lal v. State) , pending before this Court. Since the learned trial judge has yet not proceeded with the trial of the petitioners there would not arise any occasion for stay of the proceedings of the trial court. The argument is pre- mature. 4. It was next urged that the ground on which the petitioners were held to have given false evidence in the case have not been mentioned in the notice. The copies of the notices have not been brought on the record of the case. That was shown to me at the hearing. Notice which appears to have been issued by the trial Judge does not contain the particulars of the statements of the two petitioners on which they were held to have given false evidence in the case. It is desirable that not only relevant portion of their statement, which has been found false by the court, be mentioned in the body of the notice but also the statement or statements should accompany the notices so issued to the persons against whom proceedings under Section 344 Cr.P.C. are intended to be initiated. 5. It is desirable that not only relevant portion of their statement, which has been found false by the court, be mentioned in the body of the notice but also the statement or statements should accompany the notices so issued to the persons against whom proceedings under Section 344 Cr.P.C. are intended to be initiated. 5. It was further submitted that the statement on oath made by witness in the court is substantive evidence in the case and the statements, said to be contradictory to the statement recorded on oath should also be recorded on oath and if some contradiction is found in the two statements either of them may be held to be false to the knowledge of the maker of the statements. In the present case the statements with which the petitioners were confronted were recorded under Section 161 Cr.RC. and on the basis of such statements the petitioners should not have been held to have perjured themselves. 6. The arguments advanced are though provoking. 7. In view of the fact that an appeal against the judgment and order rendered in the present case is still pending before this Court, and petitioners are responsible officers of the Supply Department but they have not so far offered their explanation before the learned trial judge, it would be proper that they be directed to put forth stand and explain their conduct before the trial Judge. The trial judge is expected to consider the explanation offered by them in response to the notices issued by him to them and then to make his satisfaction whether it would be, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, desirable to try them summarily under section 344 Cr.RC. for giving false evidence. In case, the learned trial judge is of the opinion that the petitioners or either of them should be tried summarily under Section 344, he may pass an appropriate order but he would not proceed with the trial of the petitioners until the main case is decided by this Court. 8. Both the petitions are disposed of in the manner stated above.> Petition disposed of as above. *******