Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 872 (PAT)

Sone Lal Yadav v. State Of Bihar

2006-09-20

REKHA KUMARI

body2006
Judgment 1. This is an application under sec. 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 10.12.2003 passed by Fast Track Court No. 1, Madhubani in S.Tr. No. 111/81 by which he has added the petitioner as an accused under the provisions of Sec.319 Cr.P.C. and has ordered to issue summons against him for facing trial. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the above sessions trial, the case was fixed for judgment on 10.12.2003, and on that date the A.P.P. incharge of the case filed a petition to add the petitioner as accused and the learned trial court without applying his mind, allowed the prayer and passed the impugned order. He contended that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. No cognizance was taken against him. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 30.7.1979 and more than 24 years had elapsed since the alleged occurrence. The trial is also of the year 1981 and all the witnesses were examined by the prosecution. One of the accused is also in custody and as such, it was not proper for the learned trial court to pass the impugned order at such a belated stage. 4. Learned counsel for O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that P.Ws. 1 and 2 had stated in their evidence that the petitioner had also taken part in the alleged occurrence and the power u/s 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised at any stage during trial. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order. 5. It may be mentioned that the power u/s 319 Cr.P.C. is extraordinary in nature and should be exercised very sparingly. An order under this provision ought to be passed at the earliest and within a reasonable period of time. Where accused persons have been facing trial from a long period of time, such an order caused prejudice to the accused. In the case of State of Assam vs. Abdul Halim, 1992 Cr.L.J. 3438, u/s 302/34 I.PC, the Sessions Judge directed that some persons should be tried together with original accused persons. Order of the Sessions Judge, though valid, was set aside by the High Court. The Supreme Court, in exercise of its inherent powers, quashed the order of the High Court. Order of the Sessions Judge, though valid, was set aside by the High Court. The Supreme Court, in exercise of its inherent powers, quashed the order of the High Court. However, as 18 years had passed since the date of the occurrence, those persons were not directed to undergo trial after the lapse of such a long period. 6. In this case also though P.Ws. 1 and 2 have named the petitioner as one of the persons who had also taken part in the occurrence as more than 24 years had elapsed, and one of the accused was in custody, and the trial had concluded, and the case was fixed for judgment, the learned trial court was not at all justified in exercising its power u/s 319 Cr.P.C. and passed the impugned order. 7. In the result, the application is allowed, the impugned order is set aside. The learned trial court must deliver the judgment without further delay.