Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 384 (RAJ)

Samartha Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2002-02-14

SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2002
Judgment Sunil Kumar Garg, J.-This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-complainant against the order dated 111.2001 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Jalore in Sessions Case No. 79/2001 by which he rejected the application filed under Section 319 CrPC by APP. 2. It arises in the following circumstances:- On the report of the complainant petitioner Samartharam, FIR No. 59/2001 was registered at Police Station Sayala District Jalore on 17.5.2001 and after investigation police submitted challan for the offence under Section 306 IPC against only one accused Rawataram, who is husband of deceased. After recording of statements often prosecution witnesses, the learned APP filed an application under Section 319 CrPC before the trial Court with the prayer that cognizance against Kheta, Natha, Teja, Panna, Bhura, Manna, Soni wife of Bhura and wife of Manna be also taken for the offence under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC and they be summoned as additional accused. The said application was rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Jalore through order dated 111.2001. Aggrieved from the said order dated 111.2001 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Jalore, this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-complainant. 3. In this revision petition, it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-complainant that the impugned order is erroneous one as the names of the person to be added are found in the report as well as in the statement of the witnesses recorded during trial in Court. Hence, it was prayed that this revision petition be allowed and the impugned order dated 111.2001 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Jalore be set aside and the application under Section 319 CrPC be allowed and the persons mentioned in that application be summoned as additional accused. 4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents No. 2 to 9 supported the impugned order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Jalore. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner-complainant, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the Respondents No. 2 to 9 and perused the materials available on record. 6. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Jalore. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner-complainant, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the Respondents No. 2 to 9 and perused the materials available on record. 6. During the course of argument, a fact has come on record that the sessions case in which these persons were asked to be added as additional accused had come to an end and that sessions case has already been decrded. 7. In these circumstances when the sessions case had come to an end, the question that arises for consideration is whether these persons can be added as additional accused under Section 319 CrPC or not. 8. This Court in Abhey Singh vs. The State of Rajasthan (1), has clearly laid down the law on the point and held that after pronouncing judgment, the course of trial comes to an end and power of the Court under Section 319 CrPC also comes to an end. 9. In my considered opinion also, the trial of the persons to be added as accused has to be with the accused already before the Court and a separate trial is not envisaged and furthermore, it is not the object of the provisions of Section 319 CrPC that a separate trial should be held. 10. The Patna High Court in Gopal Krishna vs. State (2), has held that it is laid down in Section 319(4) CrPC that the proceedings in respect of a person, other than the accused who appears to have committed an offence for which he could be tried together with the accused, shall be commenced afresh and the witness re-heard. In this background, the order under Section3l9 ought to be passed at the earliest and at the proper stage and within a reasonable period of time and not at the time of pronouncing judgment and that too after the trial had consumed a period of about 17 years. 11. Theabove law laid down by the Patna High Court also goes to show that separate trial is not envisaged. 12. TheHon’ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi (3), has held: “Section 319 gives ample powers to any Court to take cognizance and add any person not being an accused before it and try him alongwith the other accused. 12. TheHon’ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi (3), has held: “Section 319 gives ample powers to any Court to take cognizance and add any person not being an accused before it and try him alongwith the other accused. In these circumstances, therefore, if the prosecution can at any stage produce evidence which satisfies the Court that the other accused or those who have not been arrayed as accused against whom proceedings have been quashed have also committed the offence the Court can take cognizance against them and try them alongwith the other accused. But, this is really an extraordinary power which is conferred on the Court and should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against the other person against whom action has not been taken. 13. The above observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court also lead to the conclusion that separate trial is not envisaged, as the added persons are to be tried alongwith the other accused persons, who are already before the Court. 14. When this being the position and the trial has already come to an end, therefore, this revision petition has become infructuous and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this revision petition filed by the petitioner-complainant is dismissed, as having become infructuous.