Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 536 (UTT)

GULZAR v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2015-11-18

ALOK SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Present petition is filed assailing the judgment and order dated 21.01.2014, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Roorkee in Criminal Case No. 316 of 2014 State Vs. Muntazir and another, Police Station Kotwali Gangnahar Roorkee, District Haridwar, under Sections 420, 506 and 504 I.P.C., whereby learned Magistrate was pleased to summon the applicant as additional accused by exercising the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.. 2. Impugned order reads as under :- “Applicant V.R.D. Pharmaceuticals Kurushetra Haryana through its partner Jogendra Kumar Ved has moved present application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. through the Assistant Prosecuting Officer to summon Gulzar Ahmed S/o Yaseen as an additional accused for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Gangnahar, Roorkee in view of the statement of PW1 Jogendra Kumar Ved. Section 319 Cr.P.C. provides if in the course of any inquiry or trial of an offence, it appears to the Court from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed such offence for which such person should be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. In the present case, having perused the statement of PW1 Jogendra Kumar Ved, in the opinion of this Court, there are sufficient grounds to take cognizance against Gulzar Ahmad S/o Yaseen, R/o Village Madhopur Hajratpur, Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar, therefore, application moved by the prosecution is liable to be allowed. Order Consequently, application moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is allowed and cognizance is taken against accused Gulzar Ahmad S/o Yaseen, R/o Village Madhopur Hajratpur, Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar. Let he be summoned to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 504 and 506 I.P.C. List on 05.03.2014 for appearance of the accused. Sd- Judicial Magistrate Roorkee, Haridwar” 3. In the entire impugned order, there is no whisper as to why and in the light of what material/evidence, learned Court has formed the opinion that Gulzar Ahmed, present petitioner should be summoned as an additional accused. In my humble opinion, before invoking Section 319 of the Code to summon the person as an additional accused, Trial Court must record its prima facie satisfaction, after discussing the prosecution case, material / evidence available on the record to justify summoning under Section 319 of the Code. 4. In my humble opinion, before invoking Section 319 of the Code to summon the person as an additional accused, Trial Court must record its prima facie satisfaction, after discussing the prosecution case, material / evidence available on the record to justify summoning under Section 319 of the Code. 4. In the present case, from the perusal of the impugned order, it is, thus, clear that Court has not applied its judicial mind and has simplicitor allowed the application without discussing the prosecution story and statement of PW1 Jogendra Kumar Ved. It is not clear on what part of the statement, Court has formed the opinion that present petitioner is involved in the offence. Therefore, impugned order does not sustain in the eyes of law. 5. Consequently, petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 21.01.2014 is set aside. However, Trial Court shall be at liberty to decide the application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. afresh at its own merit in accordance with law before proceedings further with the trial.