Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 587 (PNJ)

Kairon Singh v. State of Punjab

2013-05-06

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2013
JUDGMENT Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral) By way of this criminal revision petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.5.2012, vide which he was summoned to face trial along with other accused by learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the statement of PW2, on the basis of which the petitioner has been summoned is an incomplete statement as the crossexamination has not been completed by the defence counsel. It is further argued that the order is miscarriage of justice as the learned Sessions Judge has not reached to the conclusion that there are chances of conviction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Mohd. Shafi Versus Mohd. Rafiq and another, 2007(2) RCR (Criminal), 762, Palanisamy Gounder and another Versus State Represented by Inspector of Police, 2006(2) RCR (Criminal), 235, Kailash Versus State of Rajasthan and anr. 2008(2) RCR (Criminal), 200 and Lal Suraj @ Suraj Singh & Anr. Versus State of Jharkhand, 2009 (1), RCR(Criminal), 504. On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted that there is no infirmity in the order and learned Sessions Judge has rightly exercised the jurisdiction in summoning the petitioner as an additional accused to face trial along with other coaccused. Heard. Under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, power conferred on the Court in the course of any inquiry or trial of an offence and the phrase used in the language of the aforesaid section, indicates that there is complete discretion to the Court concerned during inquiry or trial to summon any person as an accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Michael Machado and Anr. Versus Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr. 2000(1) AcrR. 747 (SC): 2000(SC) (Cri) 609, has observed that basic requirement for invoking the above section is that it should appear to the Court from the evidence collected during trial or in the inquiry that some other person who is not arraigned as an accused in CRR No.2082 of 2012 3 that case, has committed an offence for which that person could be tried together with the accused already arraigned. It is not enough that the Court entertained some doubt from the evidence, about the involvement of another person in the offence. In other words, the Court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence already collected regarding two aspects. It is not enough that the Court entertained some doubt from the evidence, about the involvement of another person in the offence. In other words, the Court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence already collected regarding two aspects. First is that the other person has committed offence. Second is that for such an offence, that other person could as well be tried along with already arraigned accused. This Court can interfere in the order of summoning the accused not sent up for trial on the following grounds: (i) The Sessions Judge has no jurisdiction to issue process against such person; (ii) There was a fundamental legal defect going to the root of the proceedings; (iii) There was absolutely no cause against the petitioner on the version laid in evidence oral or documentary adduced before the Court; (iv) All the residential ingredients for the offence for which he has been summoned were not laid in the FIR or did not appear in evidence; (v) There was anything capricious or arbitrary in the exercise of such discretion by the Sessions Judge or; (vi) There has been abuse of the process of the Court. The learned trial Court after scrutinizing the contents of the complaint and the statement of PW2 has rightly exercised its discretion in summoning the petitioner. This Court has read the statement of PW2 attached with this revision petition as Annexure P5 and finds that cross-examination has been conducted by the learned counsel, though the counsel for some of the accused has not cross-examined the witness. It is not a case where no cross-examination has been conducted of the witness or that the petitioner has been summoned as an additional accused on the basis of only examination in chief. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, it would be in the interest of justice not to interfere with the exercise of the jurisdiction by the Sessions Judge under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is not a case of no evidence at all. There are primafacie grounds to summon the accused to face trial as an additional accused along with other co-accused. Thus, there is no merit in the present revision petitioner and the same is hereby dismissed.