Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1262 of 2009 ====================================================== Awadhesh Kumar Singh S/o late Shambhu Singh, R/o village- Simari Jaitiya, P.S.- Navi Nagar, District- Aurangabad .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Janandan Singh S/o late Keshwar Singh 3. Shailesh Singh S/o Nanandan Singh 4. Rahul Singh S/o Mithlesh Singh, all are the R/o of village- Simari Jaitiya P.S.- Navin Nagar, District- Aurangabad .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arbind Kumar, Advocate Mr. Lal Bahadur Singh, Advocate Mr. Prem Chand Yadav, Advocate For the State of Bihar : Mr. Ram Chandra Singh, A.P.P ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 4 07-12-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. By the impugned order dated 22.5.2009 passed in Sessions Trial No. 177 of 2008/145 of 2009 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge IVth, Aurangabad, a petition filed under section 319 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the prosecution for summoning four accused persons including opposite party nos. 2 to 4 has been partly allowed and partly rejected. So far as accused Mithilesh Singh is concerned, by the impugned order he has been summoned by the learned trial court in exercise of its powers under section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial along with other co-accused persons. However, so far opposite party nos. 2 to 4 are concerned, Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1262 of 2009 (4) dt.07-12-2012 2/5 the prayer to summon them has been rejected. It appears that the petitioner lodged a criminal case alleging commission of crime under [STATUTE] as also under section 27 of the Arms Act. In the aforesaid F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner altogether 16 persons including opposite party nos. 2 to 4 were arrayed in the category of accused. On close of investigation chargesheet was submitted against 12 persons only, but the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 and co-accused Mithilesh Singh was not chargesheeted. During the course of trial of the aforesaid 12 chargsheeted accused persons, three prosecution witnesses were examined in support of the prosecution case. Thereafter, a petition was filed under section 319 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the prosecution with a prayer that the remaining four persons, originally named in the F.I.R. as accused, be also summoned to face trial along with other co-accused persons. The learned trial court, after meticulously examining the materials produced during the course of trial, has come to a finding that there are materials to summon only co-accused Mithilesh Singh for facing trial along other accused persons, and to that extent prayer made on behalf of the prosecution was allowed. However, the learned trial court has come to a finding that so far as opposite party nos. 2 to 4 are Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1262 of 2009 (4) dt.07-12-2012 3/5 concerned, the materials available on record do not justify to summon them for facing trial along with other accused persons, and, therefore, to that extent the prayer made on behalf of the prosecution was rejected. The petitioner, who is the informant, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, has preferred the present revision application questioning the correctness of the impugned order, so far as the learned trial court has refused to summon the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 in exercise of its powers under section 319 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution during the course of trial, and according to him, in view of the depositions of three P. Ws., the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 should also have been summoned for facing trial along with other accused persons. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Suman vs. State of Rajashtan & another (AIR 2010 SC 518). Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, and has supported the impugned order. He has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Awadhesh Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1262 of 2009 (4) dt.07-12-2012 4/5 Yadav vs. The State of Bihar (2012 (4) PLJR 967). So far as the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Suman (Supra.) regarding exercise of powers under section 319 Cr.P.C. is concerned, there is absolutely no quarrel with respect to the aforesaid principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The trial court in exercise of its powers under section 319 Cr.P.C. can summon any other person, who is not chargesheeted and is not facing trial, if there are materials available on record which shows involvement of that person in the commission of crime in question. However, on the basis of the aforesaid principles, the petitioner cannot get the benefit in the present case. The learned trial court has meticulously scrutinised the evidence available on record and has come to a finding that there are no materials available on record, which may justify summoning the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 for facing trial along with other co-accused in the aforesaid criminal case. It is well established that while exercising revisional jurisdiction, the High Court is normally not required to reappraise the evidence available on record for coming to a different conclusion than that of the learned trial court. In the present case no procedural irregularity or jurisdictional error has been pointed out on behalf of the petitioner. Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1262 of 2009 (4) dt.07-12-2012 5/5 In the result this application has to fail and is, accordingly, dismissed. Let this order

Applicable IPC Section: 149

Statute Text:
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. If an offence be committed by any member of an unlawful assembly, every other member of such assembly shall be guilty of the offence. If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.