Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 163 (MP)

Raghvendra v. State of M. P.

2006-01-27

A.K.GOHIL

body2006
ORDER 1. Petitioners have filed this revision petition under sections 397, 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order dated 1.10.2002 by which I1nd Additional Sessions Judge Bhind in Sessions Trial No. 165/02 at the stage of framing of charge has added the names of petitioners as accused. 2. Facts of the case are that police station Ater District Bhind filed a charge sheet against one Rajendra under section 364 (A), 302, 201 and 120-B of IPC. It was mentioned in the charge sheet that the charge sheet is being filed against accused Rajendra but other accused persons are required to be arrested and the names of other accused persons were not added in the charge sheet, nor they were treated as absconding. Charge sheet was filed only against one accused Rajendra before the Magistrate and case was also committed only against Rajendra. 3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that at the time of framing of charge, on the basis of material collected in the charge sheet and after perusal of the statements of witnesses, trial Court has added the names of petitioner as accused. This exercise by the trial Court is illegal. Under section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Sessions Judge is not having any power to add the names of accused persons at the time of framing of charge. It is not in dispute that under section 319 of CrPC, during trial or at the time of investigation names of other persons can be added as accused but that can only be done at the stage of recording evidence. Thus, the sole contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that at the stage of framing of charge the Sessions Judge cannot invoke the powers provided under section 319 CrPC and cannot issue any directions for joining the petitioners as accused in the case. 4. It is specifically mentioned under section 319 (1) of CrPC that where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. In order to apply section 319 it is essential that Court should record evidence of witnesses and after recording the evidence of witnesses, during the course of inquiry or trial, if the Court comes to the conclusion that other persons should also be added as accused it can proceed against other persons by adding them as accused in the case. 5. In the case of Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab [1998 (3) Crimes 258] the Hon'ble apex Court has held that Sessions Judge has no jurisdiction to add a new person in a case pending before it at a stage prior to recording evidence. The ratio of decision in the case of Ranjit Singh is being followed by the High Court. Again in the case of Tek Narayan Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar and another [1999 SCC (Cri) 356] Hon'ble apex Court has held that Sessions Court is competent to issue process against a person who is not charge-sheeted under section 193 after having begun the triall and having recorded some evidence of the prosecution. In the case of Raj Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar [1996 (2) Crimes 142 (SC)] it was hel by the Hon'ble Apex Court that addition of an accused by summoning or resummoning has only been permitted by manner provided under section 319 of CrPC on evidence adduced during trial and in no other way. 6. Therefore, on a plain reading of provisions of section 391 of CrPC and in the light of aforesaid law laid down by the apex Court in the case cited (supra), it is clear that provisions of section 319 CrPC cannot b exercised at the stage of framing of charge. The Court can add the accuse persons and summon them only after recording evidence of the prosecution witnesses and also after evaluation of their evidence. Considering this position under law this revision is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. I is directed that the trial Court shall first record the evidence of witnesses and thereafter during the course of inquiry if it finds that some material is available against them, the Court may at that stage exercise the necessary powers provided under section 319 CrPC. 7. With the aforesaid observations this revision petition stands allowed and disposed of.