IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 2601 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 20, 2011 Gaurav Bansal …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana. … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be Allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate with Mr. R.S. Chahal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Alok Singh, J. (Oral) This is a revision challenging order dated 10.09.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, whereby application moved by the prosecution to summon 13 more persons as additional accused to face trial along with 5 original accused was rejected. Learned Trial Court in paragraph Nos. 18 and 19 has observed as under:- “18. The material witnesses have asserted that the accused were armed with iron rods and dandas. Gaurav Bansal PW3 has gone to the extent of asserting that two assailants namely CRR No. 2601 of 2011 Chintu and Surender @ Sunder fired in the air from their pistols. It is doubtful that the accused after arming them with such deadly weapons including pistols would even take lady members of their family to execute the alleged assault on the complainant party. The possibility of involving more persons in the crime than actual assailants cannot prima facie be ruled out. In this background, giving of clean chit by the investigating agency to the additional accused and non-examination of witnesses who were given up as unnecessary, assumes significance. 19. Close scrutiny of evidence manifest that out of the three earlier referred material witnesses, PW2 and PW3 have made omnibus allegations against the additional accused. PW1 had only four injuries on head but has named six person inflicting injuries on his head. Four of them are already facing trial. The case against other two persons namely Des Raj and Anil now sought to be summoned thus becomes doubtful. So, the law propounded in Paramveer @ Happy, 2009(1) RCR (Criminal) 408 and Ganesha Vs. State of Haryana, 2007(2) RCR (Criminal) 633 in that persons cannot be summoned as additional 2 CRR No. 2601 of 2011 accused merely because the allegations against them has come in the statement of a witness during the course of trial can be safely applied to this case.” It is settled law that a person can be summoned to face trial as an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. ordinarily when Trial Court is satisfied that entire evidence would lead to conviction of the accused sought to be summoned. No person should be summoned to face the trial on the basis of omnibus allegations made against him in the statement of the prosecution witness. Since, Trial Court has deemed fit not to exercise its discretion to summon the persons as additional accused to face trial, I am not inclined to interfere in the discretion used by learned Trial Court. I do not find any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Dismissed in limine. October 20, 2011 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 3