Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2160 (PNJ)

Mangaljit Singh @ Manga v. State of Punjab

2009-12-11

SHAM SUNDER

body2009
JUDGMENT Mr. Sham Sunder, J. - This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the order dated 12.02.2007, rendered by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar, has been filed by Mangaljit Singh alias Manga, petitioner. 2. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 3. The Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar, did not record its satisfaction, in coming to the conclusion that Kartar Singh son of Mangal Singh and Mangaljit Singh alias Manga son of Kartar Singh, accused, appear to have committed the offences, punishable under Sections 452 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. He has further submitted that, as such, the Court below illegally accepted the application, under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code He has further submitted that both these accused, did not cause any injury, on the person of the injured. He has further submitted that on account of the civil litigation, pending between the complainant, and their father, they were falsely implicated. He has further submitted that during the course of investigation, they were found to be innocent, and their names were kept in column No. 2. He has further submitted that even no opportunity was granted to cross-examine Joginder Singh, PW, and his examination-in-chief did not constitute the legally admissible evidence. He has further submitted that the Court below, failed to take into consideration, that no role was played by Mangaljit Singh @ Manga, petitioner, in the alleged commission of crime. He has further submitted that the order impugned, being illegal, was liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner was rightly summoned by the Court below, after recording satisfaction, that he along with another accused, participated in the commission of crime. He has further submitted that the examination-in-chief of Joginder Singh, PW, constituted the legally admissible evidence, and, on the basis thereof, the accused could be summoned. He has further submitted that the order, impugned, being legal and valid, was liable to be upheld. 5. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the petition deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. He has further submitted that the order, impugned, being legal and valid, was liable to be upheld. 5. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the petition deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. No doubt, the petitioner was found innocent during the course of investigation. However, the result of investigation was not binding upon the Court below. The Court below was required to act, on the basis of independent evidence/material, before recording its satisfaction, as to whether, any offence was committed by the accused, or not. After the challan was presented, against the other accused, and the charge was framed against them, Joginder Singh, PW, was examined-in-chief. Thereafter, an application under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code, was moved by the prosecution, for summoning the petitioner and his co-accused. The Court, after recording its satisfaction, that they participated in the commission of crime, summoned him. The examination-in-chief of Joginder Singh, PW, constituted the legally admissible evidence. In Rakesh and anr v. State of Haryana, [2001(3) All India Criminal LR (S.C.) 612], Lok Ram v. Nihal Singh, [2006(3) All India Criminal LR (S.C.) 476] and Paramjit Kaur and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 241, relied upon by the Counsel for the respondent, the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect, that a person can be added as an additional accused, on the basis of statement of a prosecution witness, who was not cross-examined. It was further held that cross-examination of such a witness before passing the order on an application under Section 319(1) Criminal Procedure Code, is not necessary. An argument was advanced in Rakesh and anrs case (supra) before the Apex Court, that evidence, as used in Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code, would mean evidence which is tested by cross- examination. It was held that the question of testing the evidence, by cross-examination, would arise only after the addition of the accused. It was further held that there is no question of cross-examining the witness, prior to the adding of a such person as an accused. It was held that the question of testing the evidence, by cross-examination, would arise only after the addition of the accused. It was further held that there is no question of cross-examining the witness, prior to the adding of a such person as an accused. It was further held that Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code, does not contemplate an additional stage of first summoning the person, and giving him an opportunity of cross- examining the witness, who has deposed against him, and thereafter deciding whether such person is to be added as an accused or not. Word "evidence" occurring in sub-section is used in comprehensive and broad sense, which would also include the material collected, by the Investigating Officer, and the material or evidence, which comes before the Court, and from which the Court can prima facie conclude that the person not arraigned before it, is involved in the commission of crime. The principle of law, laid down, in Rakesh and anrs , Lok Rams and Paramjit Kaur and others v. cases (supra) is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Keeping in view the principle of law, laid down, in these cases, the trial Court, was right, in summoning the accused, for facing trial, on the basis of examination-in-chief of Joginder Singh, PW. 6. The Court below, exercised the discretion, vested in it, on the basis of sound judicial principles, and not arbitrarily or capriciously. The order impugned does not suffer from illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court. The same is liable to be upheld. 7. For the reasons, recorded above, the instant petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.