JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral):- The matrix of the facts and material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record is that, on 30.11.2010 at about 2.30 PM, petitioner complainant Kayyum Khan son of Nasruddin(for brevity “the complainant”) and his brother Swalleh Khan, were irrigating their fields. Hasim son of Ishak was passing nearby. Swalleh Khan asked him to return an amount of Rs.150/- taken by him. On this aspect, Hasim became angry and threatened to teach him a lesson for demanding money. Some altercation had taken place between them. Thereafter, he(Hasim) went away. 2. The case of the prosecution further proceeds that the complainant and his brother were returning to their home after finishing the work. At about 3.00 PM, as soon as, they reached near the house of Sirdar son of Sabbir(spot), in the meantime, on the way Hasim and Kasam sons of Ishak, Hassan Mohd. @ Hassan @ Masad son of Daulat, Mubba @ Mubarik @ Bakal Fad son of Dinu and their other co-accused, armed with deadly weapons, came there with their common object. Hasim exhorted other accused that Swalleh Khan be taught a lesson for demanding money. Thereafter, Hasim fired at him(Swalleh Khan) with his gun and the bullet hit on his right eye. He felled on the ground after receipt of injury. Then Hassan son of Daulat, Kasam son of Ishak and Mubarik son of Dinu also fired shots towards him. Swalleh Khan suffered multiple injuries on various parts of the body, culminating into his death. The remaining accused were stated to have given ‘lalkara’ at the spot. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of statement of the complainant, the present case was registered against the pointed accused, vide FIR No.316 dated 30.11.2010(Annexure P-1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 148, 149, 302 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, by the police of Police Station Ferozepur Jhirka, District Mewat, in the manner depicted here-in-above. 3. During the course of investigation, the police found the remaining accused, including main accused Hasim son of Ishak, innocent and exonerated them. 3. During the course of investigation, the police found the remaining accused, including main accused Hasim son of Ishak, innocent and exonerated them. At the same time, after completion of the investigation, final police report(challan) was submitted only against two accused Hassan son of Daulat and Mubarik son of Dinu in this regard. 4. Having completed all the codal formalities, they were accordingly charge-sheeted for the commission of pointed offences and the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution by the trial Court. 5. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges framed against the accused, examined complainant-Kayyum as PW1, who has named all the accused as assailants. Thereafter, an application was moved on behalf of the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C., to summon the indicated additional accused, to face the trial with other accused for the offences, in question. The accused filed the reply, refuted the prayer of the prosecution and prayed for dismissal of the application. 6. Sequelly, the trial Judge dismissed the application, by means of impugned order dated 11.07.2012. 7. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-complainant has preferred the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Section 401 Cr.P.C. 8. During the course of preliminary hearing, a Coordinate Bench of this Court(M.M.S.Bedi, J.) passed the following order on August 22, 2012:- “Counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the complainant from the very beginning is that Hasim had fired a shot at Swallah on his right eye whereas Hasan and Kasam had fired shots resulting injuries beneath shoulder of his right hand and head. It is claimed that the trial Court ought to have allowed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. against Hasim as well as Kasam. Notice of motion to Advocate General, Haryana, for November 5, 2012. At this stage, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order qua the remaining persons sought to be added as additional accused as the trial Court while dismissing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has specifically observed that application had been dismissed at that stage.” 9. Meaning thereby, the case/role of the main accused Hasim and Kasam sons of Ishak only remains to be determined in this petition. 10. Meaning thereby, the case/role of the main accused Hasim and Kasam sons of Ishak only remains to be determined in this petition. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant revision petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 11. As is apparent from the impugned order that, the main grounds which appear to have been weighed with the trial Judge, to negate the plea of the petitioner-complainant were that; (i) there was an enmity/election rivalry between the parties, (ii) the complainant came to know about the transaction of Rs.150/- between Hasim and his brother on the date of occurrence, (iii) the entire occurrence lasted in 5-6 minutes, (iv) all the accused were standing just adjacent to the western wall, (v) he had seen the weapons at a distance of 30/35 feet, (vi) he could not tell as to whether his brother Swalleh Khan had fallen face-wise or back-wise, after sustaining the first shot, (vii) no role is attributed to other accused, except Hasim and Kasam sons of Ishak and (viii) no such convincing evidence is available on record, to summon the assailants as additional accused. 12. Here to my mind, the trial Judge has slipped into a deep legal error in this relevant connection. Section 319 Cr.P.C. postulates that, Where, in the course of any 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 which he appears to have committed. 13. Ex facie, the celebrated arguments of the learned counsel that the police has exonerated the accused, now sought to be summoned, and reasoning of the trial Judge that since, there is no convincing evidence on record, so, they cannot be summoned as additional accused, are not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 14. At this stage of summoning, the Court is only required to see the prima facie evidence, to summon the assailants as an additional accused. 14. At this stage of summoning, the Court is only required to see the prima facie evidence, to summon the assailants as an additional accused. He is not required to meticulously examine the evidence and to ignore the statement of the complainant on minor discrepancies here and there, at this initial stage of summoning the accused, as has been done by it in the present case. This matter is no more res integra and is now wellsettled. 15. An identical question came to be decided by a Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in a recent judgment in case Dharam Pal Versus State of Haryana, [2013(4) Law Herald (SC) 3121 : 2013(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2411 (SC)] : 2013(3) RCR(Criminal) 787. Having interpreted the scope of Sections 319, 193, 173 Cr.P.C., adequacy of evidence at this stage and having considered a line of previous judgments on the point, it was ruled that the Sessions Court has the jurisdiction on committal of a case to it, to take cognizance of the offences of the persons not named as offenders, but whose complicity in the case would be evident from the materials available on record. It was also held that even without recording evidence upon committal under Section 209, the Sessions Judge has the power to summon those persons shown in column No.2 of the police report to stand trial along with those already named therein. 16. As is evident from the record that, names of the accused Hasim and Kasam sons of Ishak are clearly mentioned in the FIR as assailants. Indeed, the motive of incident, initially, originated from main accused Hasim. There is ample material/evidence on record that initially accused Hasim threatened Swalleh Khan, brother of the complainant, to teach him a lesson for demanding the money from him. Some altercation had taken place between them. Then, he went away from their fields. When the complainant and his brother were returning, accused Hasim & Kasam sons of Ishak and other co-accused gathered there, armed with deadly weapons and formed an unlawful assembly. 17. Meaning thereby, very direct and specific allegations are assigned that initially Hasim accused exhorted a ‘lalkara’ and then fired a shot, which hit on the right eye of Swalleh Khan and he felled on the ground after receipt of injury. 17. Meaning thereby, very direct and specific allegations are assigned that initially Hasim accused exhorted a ‘lalkara’ and then fired a shot, which hit on the right eye of Swalleh Khan and he felled on the ground after receipt of injury. Thereafter, accused Hasim, Kasam and other co-accused also fired shots and caused injuries to him, culminating into his death. In that eventuality, the trial Court(not the police) was required to determine the complicity of the accused. Thus, the jurisdiction and function of the trial Court cannot possibly be assigned to the police, to conclude that the indicated accused are innocent. Hence, to my mind, the trial Judge has committed a jurisdictional error, patent illegality and procedural irregularity, to refuse to summon Hasim and Kasam sons of Ishak, main assailants, as additional accused to face the trial along with their other co-accused, for the commission of offences, in question. Therefore, the impugned order cannot legally be sustained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 18. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial, the instant revision petition is accepted. The impugned order dated 11.07.2012 is hereby set aside. The application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the prosecution, is partly accepted to the extent and in the manner indicated here-in-above. Consequently, the trial Court is directed to summon the assailants Hasim and Kasam sons of Ishak as additional accused, to face the trial along with their other co-accused, for the indicated offences and then to decide the case, in accordance with law. Needless to mention that, nothing recorded here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits during the course of trial, as the same has been so observed for a limited purpose of deciding the present criminal revision petition. --------0.B.S.0------------