Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1740 (RAJ)

Jagga alias Jagvir v. State of Rajasthan

2011-08-17

PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL

body2011
Hon'ble AGARWAL, J.—The petitioners have preferred this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the impugned order dated 21.4.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Laxmangarh District Alwar in Criminal Revision Petition No. 39/2004 by which the learned revisional court by dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioners affirmed the order dated 11.3.2004 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Laxmangarh District Alwar in Regular Criminal Case No. 286/2001 whereby the learned trial Court while pronouncing judgment in that case took cognizance against the petitioners under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 148, 323, 325/149 and 326/149 IPC and ordered that the petitioners may be summoned through warrant of arrest. 2. The brief relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that for an incident dated 27.7.96 "parcha-bayan" of Smt. Angoori Devi was recorded on 29.7.96 and on that basis FIR No. 152/96 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Alwar for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 379, 47 IPC against several persons including the present petitioners and after usual investigation charge sheet for offences under Sections 147, 148, 308, 326, 325, 447 read with Section 149 IPC was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Kathumar District Alwar against seven persons but no charge sheet was filed against present-petitioners. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions but that was sent for trial under Section 228 Cr.P.C. to the trial court for offences under Sections 148, 323, 325/149 and for offence under Section 326/149 IPC. The learned trial Court framed charges against the persons against whom charge sheet was filed and the prosecution in support of the case produced oral as well as documentary evidence. After due trial, the learned trial Court convicted four persons but acquitted three persons vide judgment and order dated 11.3.2004 and at the time of pronouncing judgment took cognizance against present petitioners for the offences under Sections 148, 323, 325/149 and 326/149 IPC under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioners filed revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. and the learned revisional court by the impugned order dated 21.4.2006 dismissed the revision petition. Still dissatisfied, the petitioners are before this court by way of this petition. 3. Still dissatisfied, the petitioners are before this court by way of this petition. 3. By assailing the impugned orders passed by the courts below the only contention made on behalf of the petitioners is that cognizance under Section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot be taken by a court at the fag end of the trial while pronouncing final judgment against the persons who were facing trial before the court. It was submitted that according to Section 319 Cr.P.C. cognizance against a new person can be taken only when the trial against the present accused is still going on by the reason that for the applicability of this provision it is necessary that the person already facing trial and the person against whom cognizance is proposed to be taken may be tried together. It was further submitted that as in the present case the trial against seven accused was already concluded and final judgment and order was pronounced by the trial Court, so, the petitioners against whom cognizance has been ordered to be taken cannot now be tried alongwith them. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on Siya Ram vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1992 RCC (Raj.) 105. 4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor by supporting the impugned orders, submitted that there is no illegality or irregularity in them. 5. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and also gone through the record made available for my perusal as well as the relevant legal provision and the case law cited on behalf of the petitioners and also the case of Shashi Kant Singh vs. Tarkeshwar Singh and another reported in 2002 Cri.L.J. (SC) 2806. 6. In the present case the only question to be considered is whether the court while pronouncing the final judgment and order against the person who has faced the trial before the court can take cognizance against a new person under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and order that he shall now face the trial for the offence for which cognizance has been taken against him. The question raised in the present case is covered by the case of Shashikant Singh vs. Tarkeshwar Singh & Anr. The question raised in the present case is covered by the case of Shashikant Singh vs. Tarkeshwar Singh & Anr. (supra) in which Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a person summoned as accused pursuant to an order passed by a Court in exercise of power conferred by S. 319 Cr.P.C. can be tried for the offence for which he is summoned even after the conclusion of the trial wherein such an order of summoning was passed. According to Hon'ble Supreme Court trial of a newly added person under Section 319 Cr.P.C. dos not become without jurisdiction on the conclusion of trial against original accused. It was also held that the words "could be tried together" used in Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. are only directory in nature. 7. If considered in the light of pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is not tenable. Although, the Single Bench of this Court in the case of Siya Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) has otherwise held but in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the view of the Single Bench of this Court cannot be held to be a good law and it is of no help to the petitioners. Therefore, the only contention made on behalf of the petitioners being not tenable is not acceptable. 8. Consequently, the criminal misc. petition being devoid of any substance is, hereby, dismissed at the admission stage itself.