ORDER : G. Narendar, J. The petitioners, in both the petitions before this Court, were lined up as prosecution witness in the special case No. 78/2008 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Belagavi. The prosecution lodged a case before the Lokayukta Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. It is alleged that the petitioners have deposed falsely and thereby committed the offence under Section 193 of IPC. The District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi upon being convinced that the petitioner has committed the offence was pleased to lodge a complaint in accordance with the provisions of Section 340 of Cr.P.C. The Chief Administrative Officer, Belagavi by complaint dated 14.12.2011 was pleased to forward the complaint to the Court of Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Belagavi. The Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Belagavi, by its proceedings dated 18.01.2012 has been pleased to take cognisance and commenced trial of the parties. The petitioners are before this Court on a short point. 3. It is contended by the Learned Counsel for the petitioners counsel that no complaint under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. can be tried without the same being proceeded by a show cause notice. He would draw the attention of the Court to the provisions of Section 344 of Cr.P.C. which stipulates that the trail in cases of giving false evidence shall be a summary procedure and the provisions of Section 344 reads as follows: "344. He would draw the attention of the Court to the provisions of Section 344 of Cr.P.C. which stipulates that the trail in cases of giving false evidence shall be a summary procedure and the provisions of Section 344 reads as follows: "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 cognisance 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. (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. (4) Where, after any action is initiated under sub-section (1), it is made to appear to the Court of Session or Magistrate of the first class that an appeal or an application for revision has been preferred or filed against the judgment or order in which the opinion referred to in that sub-section has been expressed, it or he shall stay further proceedings of the trial until the disposal of the appeal or the application for revision, as the case may be, and thereupon the further proceedings of the trial shall abide by the results of the appeal or application for revision." 4. The provisions of Section 344(1) states as under "take cognisance of the offence and may, after giving the offender a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why he should not be punished for such offence....." He would also rely upon the judgment in Shri. Tippesh Sanna Halappa v. State of Karnataka Represented by Hescom Vigilance P.S., Belgaum, ILR 2011 KAR 1832. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the present stage is one for hearing before charge. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the provisions of Section 344 of Cr.P.C. has not been violated and the Court has only taken cognisance as is required under the provisions of the Act and has further issued summons. The ends of justice would be met if the Court below is directed to comply with the act under the provisions of Section 344 of Cr.P.C. Having taken cognisance, it is the bounden duty of the Court to afford an opportunity of showing cause as to why they should not be punished under the provisions of Section 344 of Cr.P.C. 5. With regard to the connected petition, it is submitted that there was an interim order and during the pendency of the interim order, the Trial Court has issued a non-bailable warrant. In view of the above order passed in the connected matter, the petition does not survive for consideration. In view of the interim order passed, the non-bailable warrant issued is illegal and accordingly the same is quashed. With the above observations, the petitions are disposed of. Criminal Petitions are Disposed of.