Crl. Rev. No.512 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No.512 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.8.2011 Mohinder Pal Singh & others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Nirmal Singh Kandhola, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J (oral). This is a revision petition wherein a challenge has been posed to order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, whereby application filed by the Public Prosecutor for summoning additional accused (petitioners herein) has been allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset submits that the trial court passed the order after recording the deposition of PW1 and observed that the petitioners could be tried along with other accused. According to him, the trial court did not consider the parameters laid down by the apex court in the judgment reported as Michael Machado v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2000) 3 SCC 262. He, therefore, submits that the matter be remitted back to the same court for decision afresh. Learned State counsel submits that petitioners have been rightly summoned by the court below under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for Crl. Rev. No.512 of 2010 2 facing trial. He, however, does not dispute the ratio of the judgment in Michael Machado's case (supra). It appears that on information being received by the police, a raid was conducted at Village Bano Langa Adda and certain accused were apprehended with fake currency. After investigation, the petitioners were placed in column No.2 in the report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. During trial, however, the investigating officer stepped into the witness-box as PW1 and on his statement, additional accused, namely Kamal Kishore, Harpreet Singh and Mohinder Pal Singh were summoned to face trial. While passing the impugned order dated 6th October, 2009, statement of PW1 was relied upon by the court for the purpose of exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It appears that no arguments were addressed before the court below in light of the judgment of the apex court reported as Michael Machado's case (supra). In view of aforesaid, the impugned order dated 6th October, 2009 is hereby set-aside. The matter is remitted back to the same court for decision afresh. Counsel for the parties shall be at liberty to cite the judgments, on which they seek to place reliance. Disposed of. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 23.8.2011 'rajpal'