IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-17870 of 2008 Date of decision: 19th February, 2009 Jagga Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Mandeep Singh Sachdev, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anter Singh Brar, Deputy Advocate General Punjab for the State. Mr. M.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the complainant. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Jagga Singh petitioner had lodged FIR No. 88 dated 23.07.2005 registered at Police Station Mamdot, District Ferozepur under Sections 325, 323 IPC. A perusal of the impugned order (Annexure P-4) passed on 5th September, 2006 by the Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Ferozepur shows that it has come in the testimony of complainant Jagga Singh that accused Raj Kaur and Amandeep Kaur caught hold of Jagga Singh from his hair and dragged him near the door and thereafter, injuries were caused to him by Baljinder Singh. Relying upon the statement of Jagga Singh complainant, trial Court had summoned the ladies by invoking provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. Criminal Misc. No. M-17870 of 2008 The order passed by the Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Ferozepur was assailed in a revision filed before the Sessions Court. Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, vide his order (Annexure P-6) held that the role assigned to the ladies by Jagga Singh in the Court was an improvement, therefore, the discretion could not be exercised by the trial Court. I have heard counsel for the parties. Mr. Mandeep Singh Sachdev appearing for the petitioner has stated that once the trial Court has exercised the discretion and had found the evidence of Jagga Singh complainant sufficient to summon the ladies under Section 319 Cr.P.C., where an overt act was assigned to them, discretion validly exercised by the trial Court could not be disturbed by the revisional Court holding that there is an improvement in the testimony of the complainant Jagga Singh. Mr. M.S. Sidhu appearing for the respondents has stated that the accused respondents are ladies and they have been unnecessarily dragged into litigation and accused has widened the net. After hearing counsel for the parties, I am of the view that what is the effect of the improvement made by the witnesses, is in the realm of appreciation of evidence. Once the trial Court has exercised its discretion by invoking provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C., disturbing the findings on the ground that there is an improvement in the testimony, will not be valid. By doing so, revisional Court has adjudged the truth and veracity of the allegations, which is not permissible. It is only after the evidence is led, the Court finds that the improvement made cannot be satisfactorily explained by the witnesses in the cross-examination, then the trial Court can acquit the accused. Therefore, order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, exercising revisional jurisdiction, is set aside. 2 Criminal Misc. No. M-17870 of 2008 Mr.Sidhu has further stated that respondents are ladies and husband of one of the accused, Rajwinder Kaur, is already facing trial, therefore personal appearance of the respondents before the trial Court may be exempted. I find merit in the submissions made by counsel for the respondents. Therefore, personal appearance of Rajwinder Kaur and Amandeep Kaur, before the trial Court, is exempted, subject to their filing an undertaking that they shall cause their appearance as and when required by the trial Court. They shall also file an undertaking that the evidence, if any, recorded in their absence but in the presence of their counsel, shall be binding upon them. The trial Court may incorporate any other conditions in the undertaking to be submitted by the accused. With these observations, present petition is disposed off. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE February 19, 2009 rps 3