Though apparently the provisions of Section 340 and Section 344 appear to be somewhat similar but they differ from each other in the following aspects:
(1) Section 340 is a general section containing provisions relating to the procedure to be followed in respect of certain offences affecting administration of justice, but Section 344 contains special provision which deals with the procedure to be followed in cases where a person appearing as a witness gives false evidence or fabricates false evidence.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
(2) The application of Section 344 is restricted to a judicial proceeding but there is no such restriction in application of Section 340 of the Code.
(3) Under Section 340, the Court has to hold a preliminary inquiry before making a complaint, but under Section 344, the Court can file a complaint straightaway without making an inquiry.
(4) While proceeding under Section 344, it is necessary for the Court to give a finding in the judgment or final order itself that the person appearing as a witness has intentionally and deliberately given false evidence or fabricated false evidence. The Court has also to state that prosecution is expedient in the interest of justice for the eradication of the evil of perjury. But no such finding is necessary under Section 340 of the Code.
(5) Under Section 340, the action may be taken either suomotu or on an application by a person but in Section 344 no application from any person is contemplated.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
(6) Under Section 340, the Court cannot itself assume jurisdiction to try the accused person, but it may make a complaint. On the other hand, Section 344 empowers the Court to itself try the perjurer summarily.
(7) The provisions of Section 344 are more stringent than those of Section 340 insofar as there is no right of appeal against an order under Section 344. As against this, right of appeal against an order made under Section 340 is provided in Section 341 of the Code.