In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Revision No.3050 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:8.12.2010 Raja Ram .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. A.K. Walia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.P.S. Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. M.S. Joshi, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 6. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The revision petition has been filed against the order dated 7.7.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (A), Fast Track Court, Sangrur whereby Rani alias Kanta Devi (respondent No.6) has been ordered to be summoned as an additional accused to face trial in the case. The grievance of the petitioner is that a reading of the impugned order dated 7.7.2009 would show that Rani alias Kanta Devi (respondent No.6) has been summoned as an additional accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC only; whereas she in fact has been Cr. Revision No.3050 of 2009 [2] summoned as an accused for the offences under Sections 302/149 IPC read with Section 306 IPC. A reference was made to the certified copy of the order dated 7.7.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge which is a photostat copy of the original. A perusal of the same, it was submitted, would show that Rani alias Kanta Devi (respondent No.6) had been summoned as an accused for the offences under Sections 302/149 IPC read with Section 306 IPC. According to the learned counsel, the figures and words; “302/149 IPC read with Section” have been scored off by cutting them, which cutting was not signed or initialled by the Presiding Officer who passed the order. The effect of the cutting was that Rani alias Kanta Devi had been summoned for the offence under Section 306 IPC only. In terms of order dated 18.11.2010 passed by this Court in order to get a clear picture, the comments of the learned Presiding Officer, who passed the order, were sought and she was asked to submit her report after examining the records with regard to the cutting as mentioned in the order dated 7.7.2009 that was passed. The learned Presiding Officer has sent her comments vide letter dated 4.12.2010 in which it is mentioned that she has perused the copy of the order dated 7.7.2009 vide which Rani alias Kanta Devi was ordered to be summoned as an accused on an application of the prosecution moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It is stated by the learned Presiding Officer that she summoned the said accused for the offences under Sections 302/149 IPC read with Section 306 IPC. It is further stated that there has been cutting on the said order which appears to have been made by some person of mischievous mind because had she done the said cutting, she would have definitely initialled the same. Moreover, the entire body of Cr. Revision No.3050 of 2009 [3] the order shows that she had summoned Rani alias Kanta Devi under Sections 302/149 IPC read with Section 306 IPC. In the said circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Rani alias Kanta Devi (respondent No.6) has been summoned for the offences under Sections 302/149 IPC read with Section 306 IPC. There has indeed been cutting on the order dated 7.7.2009 passed by the learned Presiding Officer. Had the cutting been done by the Presiding Officer she would have indeed initialled or signed the same. Therefore, that has been done by some person other than the Presiding Officer. In the circumstances, it is to be taken that Rani alias Kanta Devi (respondent No.6) has been summoned vide order dated 7.7.2009 for the offences under Sections 302/149 IPC read with Section 306 IPC. The learned trial Court, it is stated, has, however, framed charges against Rani alias Kanta Devi for the offence under Section 306 IPC only. Mr. M.S. Joshi, Advocate, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 6 has fairly stated that in case the learned Presiding Officer has said that Rani alias Kanta Devi has been summoned for the offences under Sections 302/149 IPC read with Section 306 IPC then the same is to be accepted. However, it is submitted that the charge-sheet against Shiv Ram alias Bhola, Devki Devi, Sukhdev Ram alias Kala and Diwan Singh (respondents No.2 to 5) was framed on 6.12.2008 (Annexure R1) for the offence under Section 306 IPC only. Therefore, in case Rani alias Kanta Devi has been summoned for the offences under Sections 302/149 IPC read with Section 306 IPC the charge against her has rightly been framed for the offence under Section 306 Cr. Revision No.3050 of 2009 [4] IPC only. It has, however, been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the application dated 3.3.2009 (Annexure-P.3) filed by the Additional P.P. was for summoning additional accused in respect of the offences under Sections 302/149 read with Section 306 IPC. The charges against the others were also liable to be framed for the offences under Section 302/149 IPC. It may be noticed that the application dated 3.3.2009 (Annexure-P.3) filed by the Additional P.P. in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur though in the head note mentions; application under Section 319 read with Section 216 Cr.P.C. but primarily the prayer is for summoning Rani alias Kanta Devi (respondent No.6) as an additional accused. It does not specifically seek the amendment of charges as against respondents No.2 to 5, who were already facing trial. Besides, it may be noticed that in terms of the charges framed on 6.12.2008 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (A), Fast Track Court, Sangrur, respondents No.2 to 5 were charged for committing the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. As such, it cannot be said on the basis of the application dated 3.3.2009 (Annexure-P.3) that the amendment of the charges against the other accused i.e. respondents No.2 to 5 was also specifically urged. In the afore-noticed facts and circumstances, it is to be taken that the order dated 7.7.2009 in view of the report of the Presiding Officer of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur that Rani alias Kanta Devi (respondent No.6) has been summoned as an accused for the offences under Sections 302/149 IPC read with Section 306 IPC. After summoning, Cr. Revision No.3050 of 2009 [5] it is stated by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that she has been charged for the offence under Section 306 IPC only. However, in view of the said order dated 7.7.2009 the question regarding framing of charges against Rani alias Kanta Devi (respondent No.6) shall have to be considered afresh by the learned trial Court. In the circumstances, the present petition is disposed of with the direction to consider the framing of charges afresh as against Rani alias Kanta Devi (respondent No.6). December 8, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*