Criminal Revision No.948 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.948 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 25-3-2010 Raj Kumar and another ......... Petitioners Vs State of Haryana .........Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present: Mr. D.N.Ganeriwala, Advocate, for the petitioners HARBANS LAL, J. This revision is directed against the order dated 1.2.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh whereby he allowed the application moved under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. and summoned Satish Kumar as well as Raj Kumar, Range Officers as additional accused to face trial alongwith their co-accused. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with a good deal of force that it is only on the basis of partly recorded statement (Annexure P-2) of Bijender Singh Rana PW-1 that the trial Court has passed the impugned order Annexure P-1 for summoning the petitioners to face trial alongwith their co-accused. The impugned order is non-reasoned and non-speaking and it does not fulfill the requirements of law. There is nothing on the record to show that the unrebutted statement of the said witness would ultimately lead to conviction of the petitioners. In these Criminal Revision No.948 of 2010 (O&M) 2 premises, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He has sought to place abundant reliance upon the observations rendered in re:Lal Suraj @ Suraj Singh and another vs. State of Jharkhand 2009(1) Recent Criminal Cases 702 (SC), HardeepSingh vs. State of Punjab and others 2009(1) Recent Criminal Cases 95 (SC) and Mohd. Shafi vs. Mohd. Rafiq and another 2007(2) Recent Criminal Reports (Crl.) 762. I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. The relevant part of the statement (Annexure P-2) dated 11.9.2009 of Bijender Singh Rana PW1 reads as under:- “On 18.03.2005 firstly we visited Forest Office, Ferozepur Jhirka at 9.30 a.m. We remained there for about half an hour. Thereafter, I proceeded towards Rawali land i.e. plantation site alongwith my team. We reached at the site at about 10.45 a.m. I did not call any person from village Rawali. (At this stage an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is filed by learned P.P. To summon Satish Kumar and Raj Kumar, Range Officers, F.P.Jhirka, as co-accused. On request of Ld. Defence counsel further cross-examination is deferred. The accused have right to further cross examine the witness after decision of the application u/s 319 Cr.P.C.” Axiomatically, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State had moved the application under the said Section when the learned defence counsel was cross-examining the said witness. In Mohd. Shafi's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under: “12. The trial Judge, as noticed by us, in terms of Section 319 Criminal Revision No.948 of 2010 (O&M) 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was required to arrive at his satisfaction. If he thought that the matter should receive his due consideration only after the cross-examination of the witnesses is over, no exception thereto could be taken far less at the instance of a witness and when the State was not aggrieved by the same. 13. From the decisions of this Court, as noticed above, it is evident that before a court exercises its discretionary jurisdiction in terms of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it must arrive at the satisfaction that there exists a possibility that the accused so summoned is in all likelihood would be convicted. Such satisfaction can be arrived at inter alia upon completion of the cross-examination of the said witness. For the said purpose, the court concerned may also like to consider other evidence . We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court has committed an error in passing the impugned judgment. It is accordingly set aside. The appeal is allowed.” It can be reasonably culled out from the afore-extracted observations that before a court exercises its discretionary jurisdiction in terms of Section 319 of Cr.P.C., it must arrive at the satisfaction that there exists a possibility that the accused so summoned in all likelihood would be convicted. Such satisfaction can be arrived at, inter alia, upon completion of the cross-examination of the said witness. In view of Mohd. Shafi's case (supra), without recording complete cross-examination of the prosecution witness, such application cannot be disposed of effectively. It is on the basis of the complete statement of the witness, the trial court is to record its Criminal Revision No.948 of 2010 (O&M) 4 satisfaction that if this evidence goes unrebutted, it would lead to conviction of the person sought to be summoned as an additional accused. Thus, in view of Mohd Shafi's case (supra), the impugned order is hardly sustainable. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order (Annexure P1) is set aside with a direction to the learned trial court to reconsider the said application on completion of the cross-examination of Bijender Singh Rana PW1. Petition stands disposed of. Since the appeal has been decided, all pending Criminal Miscellaneous,if any, also stand disposed of. (HARBANS LAL) JUDGE March 25, 2010 RSK NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes/No