CRR No.2208 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.2208 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.05.2011 Mam Chand ....Petitioner Versus Chetna and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Satish Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Kaura, Advocate, for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Complainant has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, assailing the order dated 27.4.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, thereby rejecting the application moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by Public Prosecutor to summon Chetan son of Devinder and Sukhi son of Karam Singh as additional accused in the case. Brief facts of the present case are that on 13.1.2009 complainant along with his uncle Nazir Khan ad one Pritam Singh was going to his house at about 9 p.m., he started for his house on his cycle. His uncle promised to come later on. In the meantime, accused Charanjit Singh came behind him and gave a blow on his shoulder and when he turned his face, the accused threw acid from the cane of white colour, which he was carrying, on his face and eyes, as a result of which, CRR No.2208 of 2010 (O&M) -2- his visibility came to an end. He ran away, but he struck against a vehicle. Then, one person, namely, Sukhi son of Karma caught him from his arms. Charanjit Singh again threw acid on his face. He started crying, which attracted his uncle Nazir Khan at the spot. Charanjit Singh again threw acid on his hands and also took out his knife. His uncle caught Charanjit Singh. In the meantime, boy of pinjian caste picked up a brick and made the accused to run away. In the meantime, Charanjit Singh called for Chetan son of Devinder Sing and then Chetan took Charanjit Singh away on his motorcycle. He was admitted in Sector 32 hospital. Charanjit Singh had thrown acid on him on conspiracy with Sukhi and Chetan. Having received this challan, learned Magistrate has committed the case for the trial to the learned Sessions Judge. Learned Public Prosecutor after examination of PW1 has moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon Chetan and Sukhi to face trial as additional accused in the matter. Learned Additional Sessions Judge vide impugned order dated 27.4.2010 rejected the application of the prosecution being devoid of any merit. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner and have carefully perused the record available before me. Undisputedly, Charanjit Sing alias Goga is facing trial under Section 308 IPC. Now, prosecution wants to summon Chetan and Sukhi to face trial. Learned Court below has rightly came to the conclusion that statement of Mam Chand is not sufficient to summon and convict Devinder and Sukhi because this witness has never named the proposed additional accused in his previous statement suffered by him to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during the investigation. Moreover, CRR No.2208 of 2010 (O&M) -3- complainant in his statement himself has admitted that due to acid he had lost his visibility, therefore, it was not possible for him to recognize Sukhi. Now, it is no more res integra that power under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised by the Trial Court when Trial Court finds that there is sufficient evidence against the persons sought to be summoned as accused, prima facie proving their complicity in the offence and Trial Court finds from the evidence available on the record that such persons have also committed the offence and must be tried along with other accused already facing trial. Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. must be exercised very sparingly and with great caution. In the opinion of this Court, since learned Trial Court has refused to exercise judicial discretion after perusing entire material available on the record, this Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction should not disturb the view taken by the learned Court below. Moreover, I do not find any material to take contrary view to the view taken by the learned Court below. Dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge May 10, 2011 R.S.