Criminal Misc. No. M-12315 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-12315 of 2009 Date of decision: July 16, 2009 Gurtej Singh & another -Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & another -Respondents Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta Present: Mr. Simranjeet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Rajan Gupta, J.(Oral) This is a petition against the order dated 7-3-2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda whereby he rejected the prayer for a separate trial of accused Gurjant Singh. Brief facts of the case are that a criminal complaint was filed by Sukhdev Kaur against accused Gurtej Singh, Surjit Singh, Angrej Kaur, Leelo, Sibo, Virpal Kaur and Gurjant Singh under Sections 494/109 IPC in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda. The Magistrate after examining preliminary evidence decided to summon the accused to face trial. However, accused No. 7 namely Gurjant Singh could not be summoned, it appears inadvertently. The trial proceeded against rest of the accused . The complainant moved an application for summoning of Gurjant Singh accused No. 7. The said application was disposed of by the Magistrate vide order dated 19-1-2007 by observing that trial against rest of Criminal Misc. No. M-12315 of 2009 2 the accused had reached its final stage. Thus, order against the said accused would be passed after decision of the case against the accused already charged. Against the said order, a revision petition was preferred by the complainant Sukhdev Kaur. The Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision petition and observed that the order passed by the Magistrate was vague and unsustainable in law. He held that bifurcation of the trial was not possible, all the accused should be tried simultaneously. He remitted the case back to the trial court to pass the specific order. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioners have approached this Court. The only plea raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that trial of Gurjant Singh should be segregated from that of all other accused. He has emphasized that trial against remaining accused had reached its final stage and thus the accused cannot be allowed to bear the agony of a fresh trial. Learned counsel submits that law on this point is well settled by various judgments of this court as well as that of apex court. I have heard counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. It appears that at the stage of summoning of the accused, Gurjant Singh was inadvertently left out. Later an application was moved by the complainant for summoning him. The trial Court though did not dismiss the application yet it observed that order against accused No. 7 would be passed after the trial was over. The Magistrate came to the conclusion that Gurjant Singh could not be summoned earlier because of a Criminal Misc. No. M-12315 of 2009 3 typographical error though the complainant had led preliminary evidence against him. The trial court also observed that submissions made by the complainant were correct but it segregated the trial of Gurjant Singh. This order was reversed by the revisional court. Counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any legal infirmity with the order passed by the revisional court. In my considered view, the revisional court has rightly held that bifurcation of the trial was not possible. It is well settled that as far as possible, all the accused should be tried simultaneously at one trial. In the instant case, the mistake of not having summoned accused Gurjant Singh despite preliminary evidence available against him, was detected by the trial court before the trial was over. Thus, there could be no ground for the trial court to hold that order against Gurjant Singh would be passed after conclusion of trial against the accused already charged. In Bholu Ram v. State of Punjab (SC) 2008(4) R.C.R (Crl) 187 the apex court held as under: “21. Sometimes a Magistrate while hearing a case against one or more accused finds from the evidence that some person other than the accused before him is also involved in that very offence. It is only proper that a Magistrate should have power to summon by joining such person as an accused in the case. The primary object underlying Section 319 is that the whole case against all the accused should be tried and dispose of not only expeditiously but also simultaneously. Justice and convenience both require that cognizance against the newly added accused should be taken in the same case and in the same manner as against the original accused. The power must be regarded and conceded as incidental and ancillary to the main power to take cognizance as part of normal process in the administration of criminal justice”. Criminal Misc. No. M-12315 of 2009 4 It is thus clear that normally the accused in a case should be tried together at the same trial. In a number of cases it is seen that the role of various accused is inextricably inter linked. In such circumstances, it would be important that all of them are tried together. The ratio of the judgments relied upon by counsel for the petitioners is not attracted to the facts of the case in hand as in the present case one of the accused was inadvertently left out by the trial court at the stage of summoning. The trial court has already arrived at a conclusion that the complainant was correct in her submission that Gurjant Singh should have been summoned in view of the preliminary evidence against him. The trial is still not over. Thus, there was no reason or ground for the trial court to direct that trial of Gurjant Singh would be held after the trial against the accused already appearing is over. I thus find no merit in the present petition. The same is dismissed. [Rajan Gupta] Judge July 16, 2009. 'ask'