JUDGMENT Mr. Alok Singh, J (Oral):- Accused/revisionist is assailing order dated 24.2.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, in a sessions trial pursuant to FIR No. 197 dated 15.11.2004 under Sections 302/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Hariana, District Hoshiarpur, thereby rejecting the application of the accused/revisionist moved under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking discharge of the accused/revisionist. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that one Ramanpreet Singh has lodged an FIR with the allegation that on 15.11.2004 at about 12.30 p.m. his mother Smt. Manjit Kaur was going from their house to the ration depot and the moment she reached in front of Janta Band House, Satpal Singh alias Satta son of Tarsem Singh caste Saini along with two other unknown persons came from the front side; his mother Manjit Kaur was stopped by Satpal Singh alias Satta and he has given a daggar blow on the front of her chest and as a result thereof she died at the spot; on hearing alarm, I and my elder brother Dalbinder Singh rushed to the spot, thereupon Satpal Singh alias Satta along with two other unknown persons ran away from the spot taking their weapons with them; I know Satpal Singh alias Satta. Earlier, he has abducted my father; my sister Kamlesh Rani had illicit relations with Satpal Singh alias Satta and she was living in the house of Satta. Now, Kamlesh Rani has started living separately. Satta had suspicion that we have sent Kamlesh Rani somewhere and on account of this, Satta and his companions had murdered my mother; lateron it came to the light that motorcycle No.PB- 07-L-2454 Boxer of red colour belonging to Nirmal Dharam Kanda had been taken away. 3. After investigation, police has submitted challan against Satpal Singh alias Satta as well as against Gurpal Singh @ Gopa. After the committal of the trial to the Sessions Judge, charges were framed against Satpal Singh @ Satta and Gurpal Singh @ Gopa and 10 witnesses were examined from the prosecution side. 3. After investigation, police has submitted challan against Satpal Singh alias Satta as well as against Gurpal Singh @ Gopa. After the committal of the trial to the Sessions Judge, charges were framed against Satpal Singh @ Satta and Gurpal Singh @ Gopa and 10 witnesses were examined from the prosecution side. Informant Ramanpreet Singh and other prosecution witness Dalbinder Singh have stated on oath, while appearing in the witness box, that Satpal Singh @ Satta along with Gurpal Singh @ Gopa and Sukhwinder Singh @ Sabhi (present revisionist) have murdered Manjit Kaur; Sukhwinder Singh Sabhi was carrying Chhura in his hand and has given chhura blows to Manjit Kaur deceased. 4. An application was moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon Sukhwinder Singh @ Sabhi (present revisionist) as an additional accused to face the trial. The application was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 13.5.2006. 5. Order passed by learned Sessions Judge, summoning the present revisionist under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was challenged before this Court in Criminal Revision No.1436 of 2006, Sukhwinder Singh alias Sabhi versus State of Punjab and another. On 12.11.2007, learned counsel for the present revisionist has not pressed the revision stating that since present revisionist had already been arrested and is facing trial, therefore, all the legal points shall be raised before the trial Court to seek acquittal. This Court vide order dated 12.11.2007 dismissed the revision on the basis of statement made by learned counsel for the revisionist. Thereafter, an application was moved by the present revisionist before the trial Court under Section 227 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge, which was dismissed vide impugned order. Hence the present revision. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Jaspreet Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, and have carefully perused the record. 7. Undisputedly, order dated 13.5.2006 summoning the present revisionist under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial as additional accused has attained finality in view of the dismissal of the revision as not pressed by this Court vide order dated 12.11.2007. Now the question as to whether revisionist was rightly summoned or not, cannot be seen in this revision. The only question arises is as to whether learned trial Court was justified refusing to discharge the accused under Section 227 Cr.P.C. 8. Now the question as to whether revisionist was rightly summoned or not, cannot be seen in this revision. The only question arises is as to whether learned trial Court was justified refusing to discharge the accused under Section 227 Cr.P.C. 8. In the present case accused revisionist did not appear before the trial Court, hence he was declared proclaimed offender on 20.6.2006 and trial against other accused had proceeded and resulted in conviction of the other co-accused. Thereafter, petitioner was arrested and produced before the Court. Thereafter, revision filed by the accused revisionist challenging the summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was dismissed as not pressed by this Court on 12.11.2007 and thereafter present application claiming discharge was moved which was rejected by the impugned order. In the opinion of this Court, if Court finds that prima facie there is evidence suggesting the involvement of the accused in the crime, then Court shall be within its jurisdiction to frame the charges against the accused. 9. In the present case, trial Court has summoned the present accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. prima facie finding involvement of the accused in the offence on the basis of reliable evidence available on the record, therefore, it would not be justified to say that there is no evidence on the record to frame charges. Undisputedly, no other evidence is brought on record after summoning of the accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., hence in the opinion of this Court, order passed by learned Sessions Judge, declining the discharge of the accused, needs no interference. Dismissed. ---------0.J.S.K.0-----------