Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 74 (PAT)

Rajendra Singh v. State Of Bihar

2003-01-20

NARAYAN ROY

body2003
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State However, no one appears on behalf of opposite party no. 2. 2. This application is directed against order dated 10.5.2000 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 212 of 1999, where by and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge has set aside the order dated 4.8.1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in G.R. Case No. 215 of 1998, whereby and whereunder he had rejected the prayer of the prosecution to summon accused Rajendra Singh under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as Code). 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in setting aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate as the petitioner was already made an accused in the first information report. It is further submitted that any person not being the accused has committed any offence may be summoned in exercise of power under section 319 of the Code and since the petitioner was an accused in the first information report and was not sent up for trial, the learned Magistrate was justified in not summoning the petitioner. 4. The submission of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is wholly misconceived as the question urged by learned counsel has already been decided by the apex court in the case of Kishan Singh and ors. V/s. State of Bihar [(1993 (2) Supreme Court Cases, 16] where it has been held that even the accused persons, who were discharged will come under the sweep of power conferred by Section 319 of the Code. 5. It appears from the orders impugned that in course of trial evidence had surfaced before the learned trial court showing complicity of this petitioner and therefore, a prayer was made to summon him under section 319 of the Code. 6. The learned Magistrate on wrong Interpretation of law disallowed the petition filed by the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge appears to "be wholly justified in setting aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate and in summoning the petitioner to face trial under section 319 of the Code, as sufficient materials surfaced in course of trial showing involvement of the petitioner. 7. In that view of the matter, this application is dismissed. 8. The learned Sessions Judge appears to "be wholly justified in setting aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate and in summoning the petitioner to face trial under section 319 of the Code, as sufficient materials surfaced in course of trial showing involvement of the petitioner. 7. In that view of the matter, this application is dismissed. 8. Interim order of stay dated 5.12.2000 passed by this Court is vacated.