JUDGMENT Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. (Oral) The petitioner is impugning the judgment dated 22.12.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal vide which his appeal against the judgment dated 05/06.04.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal whereby he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 02 years, was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner inter alia contends that while passing the impugned judgments both the Courts below failed to appreciate that no formal charges had been framed by the trial Court which had caused grave injustice to the petitioner. Section 340 Cr.P.C. mandated a preliminary inquiry before initiation of proceedings under the said provision, however, the trial Court had fallen into error by directly proceeding with the trial on a complaint filed under Section 193 Cr.P.C. In support of his submissions learned counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment passed in 'Sharad Pawar v. Jagmohan Dalmiya and others, 2013(2) SCC (Cri) 197'. Learned counsel has, thus, argued that in the wake of the aforesaid procedural illegality, the entire trial stood vitiated and the conviction of the petitioner deserved to be set aside. He also asserted that even otherwise, there was no cogent evidence on record to sustain the conviction of the petitioner for committing perjury. 3. In the alternative, a prayer was made by the learned counsel for reduction of sentence awarded to the petitioner to the period already undergone. 4. Learned State counsel while vehemently opposing the submissions made by the learned counsel opposite contends that the petitioner was charge-sheeted by the trial Court and mere non-framing of formal charges would not in any manner vitiate the trial. He has further submitted that the provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C. did not mandate that in each and every case a preliminary enquiry was to be conducted. He argued that the petitioner had committed a grave offence of perjury before a Court, on oath, therefore, he did not deserve any leniency. In support of his submissions learned State counsel placed reliance upon a judgment passed in 'Criminal Appeal No.335 of 2020 titled as The State of Punjab v. Jasbir Singh, decided on 15.09.2022' 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. In support of his submissions learned State counsel placed reliance upon a judgment passed in 'Criminal Appeal No.335 of 2020 titled as The State of Punjab v. Jasbir Singh, decided on 15.09.2022' 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. This Court does not find any merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the Petitioner that since formal charges were not framed by the trial Court, the conviction of the petitioner deserved to be set aside. 7. It would be relevant to point out here that Section 464 Cr.P.C. provides that mere absence or any error or any irregularity in framing of charge would not vitiate the trial and invalidate the conviction of an accused, unless and until there has been a failure of justice due to said absence, error or irregularity. 8. In the present case, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has failed to satisfy this Court as to how non-framing of charges had resulted in failure of justice. Since the petitioner was fully aware of the case set up against him and had also been given due opportunity to defend himself, hence, there was no question of any injustice having been caused to him. 9. This Court also does not concur with the submissions made by learned counsel for the Petitioner that a preliminary inquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was mandatory in all cases. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jasbir Singh's case (supra) has held as under:- '7. The reference order also simultaneously noted the observations in the Constitution Bench of this Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah (2005) 4 SCC 370 , which was post the judgment in Pritish's case (supra) but prior to the judgment in Sharad Pawar's case (supra). In this behalf the extracted portion in 23 of the judgment reads as under : "In view of the language used in Section 340 Cr.P.C. the Court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b), as the Section is conditioned by the words "Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice." This shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case. Before filing of the complaint, the Court may hold a preliminary enquiry and record a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interests of justice that enquiry should be made into any of the offences referred to in Section 195(i)(b). This expediency will normally be judged by the Court by weighing not the magnitude of injury suffered by the person affected by such forgery or forged document, but having regard to the effect or impact, such commission of offence has upon administration of justice. It is possible that such forged document or forgery may cause a very serious or substantial injury to a person in the sense that it may deprive him of a very valuable property or status or the like, but such document may be just a piece of evidence produced or given in evidence in Court, where voluminous evidence may have been adduced and the effect of such piece of evidence on the broad concept of administration of justice may be minimal. In such circumstances, the Court may not consider it expedient in the interest of justice to make a complaint. Emphasis supplied" 8. On having considered the matter, it is our view that the Constitution Bench's view would naturally prevails that makes the legal position quite abundantly clear. Not only that, if we may notice, what is reported in Sharad Pawar's case (supra) is only an order and not a judgment. An order is in the given factual scenario. The judgment lays down the principles of law. The scenario is that any order or judgment passed by this Court becomes a reportable exercise to create more volumes of reported cases! This thus has a possibility at times of causing some confusion on the legal principles prevalent. The observations in the quoted paragraph extracted aforesaid apparently came out of the flow of the order rather than pronouncing any principles of law and that is why the Bench itself categorized what is observed as an order i.e, in the given factual scenario. 9. We have little doubt that there is no question of opportunity of hearing in a scenario of this nature and we say nothing else but that a law as enunciated by the Constitution Bench in Iqbal Singh Marwah's case (supra) is in line with what was observed in Pritish'case (supra). 10. 9. We have little doubt that there is no question of opportunity of hearing in a scenario of this nature and we say nothing else but that a law as enunciated by the Constitution Bench in Iqbal Singh Marwah's case (supra) is in line with what was observed in Pritish'case (supra). 10. Interestingly both the judgments in Pritish's case and the Constitution Bench judgment in Iqbal Singh Marwah's case (supra) have not been noted in order passed in Sharad Pawar's Case (supra). The answer thus to the first question raised would be in the negative. 10. In the, facts and circumstances of the case in hand, merely because no preliminary inquiry was conducted it would not in any manner vitiate the trial. 11. Furthermore, it would also be pertinent to notice here that the petitioner in his statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the JMIC, Karnal, stated on oath qua the complicity of Hari Chand in the crime in question. However, while stepping into the witness box, during his deposition before the trial Court, he took a U-turn and contradicted his own statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and failed to support the case of the prosecution. 12. This Court has no hesitation in concurring with the findings of both the Courts below that the petitioner had thus, intentionally made a false statement on oath before a Court of law. 13. Coming to the alternate prayer made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, this Court in the above facts and circumstances is not inclined to reduce the sentence of the petitioner to the period already undergone as he stands convicted for a grave offence i.e. of polluting the stream of justice. However, at the same time, keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the petitioner belongs to the lower strata of society and his whole family is dependent upon him, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to simple imprisonment of six months from two years. 14. The fine imposed upon the petitioner would stand enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/-. 14. The fine imposed upon the petitioner would stand enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/-. It is made clear that in case of non-deposit of fine with the trial/successor Court within a period of two months from the date of this order, benefit of reduction of sentence shall not accrue to the petitioner and he will be required to undergo the remaining part of the sentence awarded to him. 15. With the aforesaid modifications, the instant revision petition is disposed of.