Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1948 (RAJ)

Barkat Ali @ Bakki v. State of Rajasthan

2011-09-12

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - The matter comes up on an application for impleading the complainant as a party-respondent. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the application, the application is allowed. Since the amended cause title has already been filed, the same shall be taken on record. 2. Mr. Kulwant Singh has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant-respondent. Therefore, notices need not be issued to the complainant-respondent. 3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard on merits. 4. The present misc. petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24.3.2011, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Anupgarh, Head Office at Suratgarh has allowed the application filed by the complainant, under Section 193 Cr.P.C. and has taken cognizance against the petitioner as an additional accused for the offences under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149 I.P.C. and under Section 25 of Indian Arms Act. 5. Assailing the order impugned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case, the charge-sheet was not filed against the petitioner, but it was filed against the.other co-accused persons. The case was committed to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Anupgarh, head Office at Suratgarh and on an application filed by the complainant under Section 193 Cr.P.C. cognizance has been taken against the petitioner as an additional accused which is absolutely illegal. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Court reported in Shankar Ram & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2010 (3) CJ (Cr.) (Raj.) 1129 . 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the complainant submits that the Learned Additional Sessions Judge is not powerless to proceed against the additional accused if charge-sheet has not been filed against them and that the complainant cannot be left at the mercy of the police. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned. 8. Suffice it to say that at the present, the law in this regard is well settled that in a sessions triable case, once the matter is committed to the Court of Sessions, then the Sessions Court has no power to summon an additional accused except at the stage of Section 319 Cr.P.C. after evidence has been recorded at the trial. Suffice it to say that at the present, the law in this regard is well settled that in a sessions triable case, once the matter is committed to the Court of Sessions, then the Sessions Court has no power to summon an additional accused except at the stage of Section 319 Cr.P.C. after evidence has been recorded at the trial. The provision of Section 193 Cr.P.C. empowers the learned Sessions Judge to take cognizance of an additional offence, but does not empower the Court to summon an additional accused. 9. In this view of the matter, the misc. petition succeeds. The order impugned dated 24.3.2011, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has taken cognizance against the petitioner and has summoned him as an additional accused is hereby set aside. However, the prosecution is at liberty to approach the learned trial Judge by way of an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. at the appropriate stage if the circumstances so warrant. 10. Stay petition stands disposed of accordingly.Petition allowed. *******