ORDER 1. This petition under section 482 CrPC challenges the prosecution initiated against the applicant by criminal complaint by the Central Excise Department under Sections 174 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It has been urged from the side of the applicant that the offence under section 174 of IPC is not made out because the applicant had ultimately appeared in response to the fourth summon issued. 3. I am unable to agree. The applicant's non-appearance in response to the first three summons constitutes a separate offence committed on each date of non-appearance, calling for three charges on those three counts. This is not to mean that the applicant is to be held guilty of those charges but it only means that he is liable to be tried for each of the three charges under section 174 of CrPC for not responding on the three occasions in response to the initial three summons. 4. So far as the fourth summon is concerned, the applicant alleges as a defence version that he appeared before the officer concerned on the date mentioned in the summon and moved an application that his statement should be recorded on the same date, but no orders were passed on that application. The applicant further alleges that he approached the next superior officer with a similar request but again no orders were passed by the superior officer. 5. As stated above these averments are the defence version of the applicant which cannot be examined at this stage. 6. The applicant has submitted that the two letters given to the concerned officer of the Central Excise and to his superior officer respectively were filed along with criminal complaint by the department itself. 7. Had that been the situation, perhaps the Court could have examined these letters in this petition. However, on going through the criminal complaint. sI do not find any averment in the same about enclosing these documents. Therefore, there is no logical reason that as to why these documents should have accompanied the criminal complaint. 8. Moreover, the applicant who had filed this petition has not even alleged on affidavit that these documents had accompanied this complaint. 9. No doubt, the applicant has submitted that now after full length arguments, he wants to file an affidavit to that effect. 10. 8. Moreover, the applicant who had filed this petition has not even alleged on affidavit that these documents had accompanied this complaint. 9. No doubt, the applicant has submitted that now after full length arguments, he wants to file an affidavit to that effect. 10. If this kind of liberty is granted, it would amount to putting a premium on bad thoughtless drafting in the first instance, and then taking advantage of the same by delaying the proceedings on the protext of filing one after another supplementary affidavits. 11. Learned counsel for the applicant then urged that the prosecution under section 193 is not permissible. He raises the following grounds in support of the submission. (i) That, the declaration made was not false. This is a question of pure fact to be determined at the trial after evidence, and cannot to be determined at this stage. (ii) The complaint was not maintainable because of the procedure prescribed by section 340 of CrPC. 12. The argument is misconceived. Section 340 of CrPC applies after the fabricated evidence has actually been used in the judicial proceedings. The bar of section 195 of CrPC also applies in that situation. However, section 193 of IPC deals with both the cases i.e. where fabricated evidence is actually used in the judicial proceedings or where it has been fabricated with the intention of being judicial proceedings but not yet so used. In the letter situation, neither section 340 nor section 195 of IPC are relevant. 13. Paragraph 5 & 6 of the complainant if read together indicate that certain false declaration have been made by the applicant. These declarations are for the purpose of being used in adjudication (which are conceded to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of section 193 CrPC) in order to avail drawback which was not permissible. Learned counsel for the Union of India cited a decision that even inquiry is a judicial proceeding. 14. In these circumstances, if the allegation is that evidence has been fabricated or false evidence has been given by the applicant with an intention that it may ultimately be used in the judicial proceedings is sufficient to constitute the offence under section 193 of IPC. Again, this is not to mean that the applicant is to be held guilty of that charge but it only means that he is liable to be tried for the same. Again, this is not to mean that the applicant is to be held guilty of that charge but it only means that he is liable to be tried for the same. There is no merit in this petition. It is dismissed accordingly. Piyush Mathur with M.S. Dwivedi for applicant; Abhishek Tugnawat for Union of India.