JUDGMENT : 1. This is an appeal preferred under Section 351 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.10.2004 passed in Special (Corruption) Case No. 3 of 1991 by learned Special Judge, Navsari, convicting the present appellant-original complainant to undergo simple imprisonment of two months with a fine of Rs.300/- for the offence punishable under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Briefly stated, the appellant is the original complainant who had lodged a complaint before the office of Anti Corruption Bureau, Valsad on 15.11.1990 against one Mohammed Yaverhussen Gulamhussen Shaikh inter alia alleging that the said accused who was working as Electrical Sub Inspector in the Mines and Energy Department at Navsari, accepted Rs.500/- and further demanded Rs.2000/- as illegal gratification for not raising any technical objection. For such alleged demand of illegal gratification, he lodged a complaint. In pursuance of the complaint, the Anti Corruption Bureau carried out the investigation and ultimately, filed a charge-sheet before the competent court. After conclusion of the investigation, the said accused was put to trial and after conclusion of the trial and hearing, the accused came to be acquitted. Thereafter, the learned Special Judge, resorting to the provisions of Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, served the show-cause notice to the present appellant-original complainant that in the deposition, he gave false and fabricated evidence and thereby, he committed the offence punishable under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Though such notice was served upon the appellant, but he did not respond to it and thereafter, straightway, the learned Special Judge vide order dated 30.10.2004, convicted the appellant by way of inflicting the sentence of two months’ simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.300/-. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Zubin Bharda for the appellant read out the show-cause notice at Exh.80 which merely runs into 7-8 lines only and the only allegation revealing from the show-cause notice is inter alia that the present appellant-original complainant had given a false evidence while deposing before the Special Court. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Zubin Bharda for the appellant read out the show-cause notice at Exh.80 which merely runs into 7-8 lines only and the only allegation revealing from the show-cause notice is inter alia that the present appellant-original complainant had given a false evidence while deposing before the Special Court. According to his submission, nowhere the learned Special Judge in the show-cause notice pointed out as to how the appellant has given a false evidence and no particular details were given to the present appellant so as to show cause to the notice issued to him and thereafter, straightway, without affording any opportunity of personal hearing, rendered the judgment and order of conviction and sentence as noted above. He further argued that since the provisions of Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contemplates summary trial and after such trial only, if the noticee is found to be guilty, then and then only, he could be punished for such offence. Unless, summary trial provided as envisaged in the aforesaid provisions of law is undertaken, the Court has no power to straightway inflict the sentence. 3.1 In order to appreciate the above contention, Section 344 is reproduced hereinafter:- “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 willfully 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. (2) In every such case the Court shall follow, as nearly as may be practicable, the procedure prescribed for summary trials. (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.” 3.2 Learned advocate for the appellant further submitted that on considering the merits of the case also, the original complainant-the present appellant was serving as Manager, ENR Chemical Private Limited. Therefore, he cannot have any personal interest on his part to rope in the accused in the offence or to extend a disadvantage to him during the course of trial by giving false evidence in order to absolve him from trial taking into consideration his step as servant of the said company. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Maithili Mehta submitted that the notice was of course served upon the appellant and as he did not show any explanation, consequently therefore, the learned Special Judge has rightly convicted the appellant and this Court should not interfere with such an order when the appellant has not explained anything. 5. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Maithili Mehta submitted that the notice was of course served upon the appellant and as he did not show any explanation, consequently therefore, the learned Special Judge has rightly convicted the appellant and this Court should not interfere with such an order when the appellant has not explained anything. 5. On going through the provisions of law itself, it makes it clear that if, during the course of trial, the Court finds that a particular witness knowingly and willingly gave the false evidence, in that case, if the Court deems it appropriate to punish him for giving such false evidence, in that case, the Court is duty bound to point out as to how the particular witness has given the false evidence detailing each and every factual aspect so that the noticee can give explanation while showing cause to such notice and thereafter, the provisions of law clearly provides for summary trial. While holding summary trial, the Court has to draw the points of consideration and thereafter, by way of holding summary trial, after adducing the oral and documentary evidence from both the sides and thereafter, giving the reasonable opportunity of hearing, can pass final order either holding him guilty or not guilty. 6. On going through the record & proceedings, undisputedly, notice at Exh.80 merely runs into 7-8 lines and except that the appellant-original complainant had tendered false evidence, nothing sort of particulars were given in such notice. Even on going through the impugned judgment holding him guilty also contains no reasons or no discussion and straightway, he had not given any written explanation and therefore, he was hold guilty without showing any reason and without holding any summary trial as envisaged under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. For the reasons recorded above, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.10.2004 passed in Special (Corruption) Case No. 3 of 1991 by learned Special Judge, Navsari is not sustainable in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the same stands quashed and set aside. Resultantly, the Appeal is allowed. Fine, if any recovered, shall be refunded. 8. R & P, be sent back to the Trial Court concerned forthwith.