Criminal Revision No.2341 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGRH Criminal Revision No.2341 of 2009 Date of decision: 8.02.2010 Sukhchain Singh ..............Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ................Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present: Shri J.S.Thind, Advocate, for the petitioner Shri Ravish Kaushik, A.A.G. Haryana Shri R.S.Madan, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3 HARBANS LAL,J. This revision is directed against the order dated 11.8.2009 passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sirsa whereby he rejected the application moved under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that on 17.7.2009 the complainant was examined as prosecution witness and he has specifically alleged that Surjeet Singh was armed with gandasa and Jeeto Bai was also armed with gandasa and she had exhorted her co-accused to eliminate the complainant and others. Thus, obviously they were members of unlawful assembly, but nonetheless the trial Court has declined to summon them as additional accused. As against this, the learned counsel for Criminal Revision No.2341 of 2009 2 respondents No.2 and 3 maintained that no overt act has been attributed to Surjeet Singh as well as Jeeto Bai and that being so, the trial Court's order cannot be faulted with in any manner. I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. The application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. has been moved on the basis of the statement made by Sukhchain Singh PW. A glance through his statement would reveal that when his cross-examination was partly recorded, the prosecution moved the said application for summoning the additional accused. In Mohd. Shafi Vs. Mohd. Rafiq and another 2007(2) Recent Criminal Reports(Criminal) 762 the apex Court has observed as under:- “12. The trial Judge, as noticed by us, in terms of Section 319 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 for 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 Criminal Revision No.2341 of 2009 3 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.” In view of these observations, it was incumbent upon the learned trial Court to have decided such application only on completion of the cross-examination of Sukhchain Singh PW. Sequelly, the impugned order is set aside with a direction to the learned trial Court to decide the application afresh after completing the cross-examination of Sukhchain Singh PW. The learned trial Court while deciding the application would also keep in mind the observations rendered in Michael Machado & Another v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, 2000(2) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 75, Palanisamy Gounder and another v. State Represented by Inspector of Police, 2006(2) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 235, Lok Ram v. Nihal Singh, 2006(2) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 707 and Ram Singh & Others v. Ram Niwas & Another, 2009(3) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 501 . Disposed of accordingly. (HARBANS LAL) JUDGE February 8, 2010 RSK NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes/No