Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 109 (PAT)

Hari Kishun Prasad Verma v. State Of Bihar

2006-01-30

REKHA KUMARI

body2006
Judgment 1. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the order dated 10.11.2004 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Trial No. 177 of 1998/179 of 2000 by which he has issued summons to the petitioners to appear in the case as accused persons under the provisions of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code. 2. Heard. 3. It appears that Opposite Party No. 2 Sachchidanand Singh had filed a case against accused Putush Sharma and the petitioners for taking action under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act in Obra Police Station in the district of Aurangabad on the basis of which Obra P.S. Case No. 58/96 giving rise to the above Sessions Trial was registered. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against accused Putush Sharma only. In the trial against the said Putush Sharma two witnesses were examined. A petition then was filed by the learned APP on 29.4.2004 (for summoning the petitioners as accused under the provisions of Section 319 of the Code. On the basis of the evidence adduced in the case the learned Additional Sessions Judge after perusing the evidence of the two witnesses and the fardbeyan of the informant found sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioners alongwith Putush Sharma and as such by the impugned order directed to issue summons against the petitioners. 4. PW-2 is not an eye-witness which is apparent from paragraph 4 of his evidence and PW-1 is the informant and inimical to the petitioners. Therefore, there was no sufficient evidence to convict the petitioners and so, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not justified in summoning the petitioners as accused. He also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Micheal Michado and others v. CBI and others, 2000 (2) East Cr C 461 (SC) : AIR 2000 SC 1127 , and submitted that in view of that decision also the learned Additional Sessions Judge should not have issued summons against the petitioners. 5. It is well settled that this Court in exercise of its discretionary power cannot appreciate the evidence on record or consider the reliability or sufficiency of evidence in issuing summons against the accused. 5. It is well settled that this Court in exercise of its discretionary power cannot appreciate the evidence on record or consider the reliability or sufficiency of evidence in issuing summons against the accused. Therefore, when the learned Additional Sessions Judge after considering the evidence adduced has passed the impugned order, this Court will not interfere with the same. 6. So far the above decision of the Apex Court is concerned, it has been decided therein that power under Section 319 of the Code should not be exercised at a belated stage but in this case the power has been exercised only after examination of two witnesses. Therefore, the above decision does not apply to the facts of this case. 7. Therefore, there appears to be no ground to exercise the inherent jurisdiction of this Court in this case. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed.