Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 323 (ORI)

Manasi Sahu v. State

2016-04-21

S.PUJAHARI

body2016
ORDER 21.4.2016On consent of the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State, this Criminal Revision is disposed of at the stage of admission. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioners in this Criminal Revision have challenged the order dated 08.09.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Balangir in G.R. Case No.722 of 2013 arraying the present petitioners, who were not charge sheeted, as accused persons allowing the petition filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C., to be illegal and arbitrary, with a prayer to set aside the same. Learned Counsel for appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is unsustainable in the eye of law as virtually no satisfaction has been recorded by the Court concerned while arraying the present petitioners as accused persons in the aforesaid case. Reliance in this regard has been placed on a Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh Vrs. State of Punjab, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 92 . Learned Counsel for the State, however, submits that since the trial Court looking into the materials on record arrayed the present petitioners as accused persons and issue summons to them and the same cannot be said to be without materials on record, the impugned order needs no interference in exercise of power of revision. Needless to say that power under Section 319 Cr. P.C. is a discretionary power. The aforesaid power as such has to be exercised sparingly and only in case where the facts and circumstances so warrants i.e. in case where strong and cogent materials occurs against a person from the evidence before the Court, the power is to be exercised in adding the persons as accused but not in a routine manner. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in case of Hardeep Singh (supra) have held as follows : “106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the Court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross-examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in case of Hardeep Singh (supra) have held as follows : “106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the Court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross-examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the Court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 Cr. P.C. In Section 319 Cr.P.C. the purpose of providing if “it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence” is clear from the words “for which such person could be tried together with the accused”. The words used are not “for which such person could be convicted”. There is, therefore, no scope for the Court acting under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused. Keeping in mind the aforesaid law laid down in the case of Hardeep Singh (supra) when the impugned order is addressed, it appears to this Court that on perusal of the evidence on record, the trial Court holding that the present petitioners appears to have some involvement in the commission of offence without recording the satisfaction as required, summoned the present petitioners in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Balangir appears to be not inconformity with the law laid down in the case of Hardeep Singh (supra).Therefore, this Criminal Revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. However, the aforesaid order of this Court shall not stand on the way of the Trial Court to proceed against the petitioners if the facts and circumstances, especially the materials on record disclose the fact they ought to be tried along with the accused persons facing their trial, but such order must be passed keeping in mind the law laid down in the case of Hardeep Singh (supra). Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. Revision allowed.