Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 496 (PNJ)

Salam v. State of Haryana

2011-02-08

ALOK SINGH

body2011
JUDGMENT Alok Singh, J. (Oral) 1. Revisionist-petitioner has invoked revisional jurisdiction, assailing the order dated 30.03.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, thereby summoning the revisionist as an additional accused to face the trial for an offence under Section 392/397/458 IPC in case F.I.R. No. 138 dated 12.02.2009, registered at Police Station City Panipat. 2. The brief facts of the case, inter-alia, are that an F.I.R. No. 138 dated 12.02.2009 was lodged with the Police Station City Panipat, stating therein that in the intervening night of 12/13.02.2009, 5/7 robbers have forcibly entered in the house of the complainant and started beating the complainant and his mother. They have taken jewellery from the mother of the complainant by assaulting the mother and complainant and have looted the other household articles as shown in the FIR from the house of the complainant. 3. During the investigation in F.I.R. No. 267 dated 25.05.2009 under Sections 399/402 IPC read with Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station Mehrauli, Delhi, looted items from the house of the complainant were recovered on the disclosure statement of the accused and thereafter, a challan was submitted by the police in the present case against the other accused who are already facing trial. PW4, mother of the complainant appeared as a prosecution witness before the Trial Court has stated that a dacoity was committed in their house at the instance of the present revisionist who has planned the dacoity in the house of the complainant with the conspiracy of the other accused who are already facing trial. Learned Trial Court, having relied upon the statement of PW4 that present revisionist has conspired and planned the dacoity, has summoned the present revisionist to face the trial under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist, as well as, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. 5. Now, it is no more res integra that power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised by the Court with great care and caution and only when Court is satisfied that involvement of the person sought to be summoned as an additional accused is prima facie proved on the record. 6. 5. Now, it is no more res integra that power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised by the Court with great care and caution and only when Court is satisfied that involvement of the person sought to be summoned as an additional accused is prima facie proved on the record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Ram Pal Singh & others versus State of U.P. and another, 2009(2) RCR(Criminal) 131, as well as, in the matter of Suman versus State of Rajasthan and another, 2010(1) Criminal Court Cases 269 (S.C.). Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Ram Pal (supra) in paras No. 15 and 16 has held as under: - “15. The ingredients of Section 319 are unambiguous and indicate that where in the course of inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence, for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence he has committed. 16. All that is required by the Court for invoking its powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to be satisfied that from the evidence adduced before it, a person against whom no charge had been framed, but whose complicity appears to be clear, should be tried together with the accused. It is also clear that the discretion is left to the Court to take a decision on the matter.” 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the matter of Ram Singh @ Lilla versus State of Haryana and others, Crl. It is also clear that the discretion is left to the Court to take a decision on the matter.” 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the matter of Ram Singh @ Lilla versus State of Haryana and others, Crl. Revision No.61 of 2011 decided on 27.1.2011, in which this Court while placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Ram Pal Singh & others (supra) and Suman (supra) has held as under: - “Having perused both the judgments as cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, now, it is no more res integra that power under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised by the Trial Court when Trial Court finds that there is a sufficient evidence against the persons sought to be summoned as an accused, prima facie proving their complicity in the offence and Trial Court finds from the material available on the record that such persons have also committed the offence and must be tried along with other accused already facing trial.” 8. From the perusal of the record, it is not clear what is the source of information of PW4 that present revisionist has planned the dacoity in the house of the complainant and has, thus, conspired with the other co-accused. The suspicion of the witness that present revisionist could have conspired and planned the dacoity, cannot be said to be a safe evidence to exercise the power under Section 319 of the Code to summon the revisionist to face the trial. Order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot stand in the scrutiny of law and deserves to be set aside. 9. In view of the above, present petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Petition allowed.