1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 31458 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.12.2008 *** Rajinder Kaur & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab. .. Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. H.S. Sangha, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Sra, DAG Punjab. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The present petitioners have challenged the order 15.2.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Khanna by dint of which they have been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. as an additional accused in a case arising out of FIR No. 137 dated 8.8.2002, under Sections 406, 420 IPC, Police Station Sadar Khanna and also to the order dated 16.8.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ludhiana vide which their revision against the aforesaid order of learned Magistrate has been dismissed. The basic requirement for invoking the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. is that it should appear to the court from the evidence collected during trial or in the inquiry that some other person, who is not arraigned as an accused in that case, has committed an offence for which that person could be tried together with the accused already arraigned. It is not enough that the court entertain some doubt, from the evidence about the involvement of another person in the offence. In other words, the court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence already collected regarding two aspects. First is that the other person has committed an offence; second 2 is that for such offence that other person could as well as tried along with the already arraigned accused.” While applying these principles to the instant case, it can safelty be said that the impugned orders cannot sustained in the eyes of law. In the instant case, Mehar Singh was examined as PW1 and during the course of recording of his examination-in-chief, the impugned application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed. Prior to filing of the said application, the following deposition was made by the said witness:- “Stated that an advertisement appeared in the Daily Ajit newspaper dated 12.8.1998 that 100 acres of land is available for cultivation for a sum of rupees two and quarter lacs in Zambia (Africa). The accused persons who were telling me about this land, their names are as follows: Gurdeep Singh, Parminder Singh, Kirpal singh, Satwant Kaur, Rajinder Kaur, Prabhdeep Singh, Mandeep singh, Jagpal Singh and Gurdial Singh, Navdeep Singh. Accused did not get the land for me and we were cheated.” It appears from the tenor and manner of deposition of PW1 that his examination-in-chief was not even properly recorded when the said application was filed by the learned Public Prosecutor. The said exercise has been done in a haste. No doubt the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. have been enacted to ensure that all those apparently involved in the commission of offence are tried and none left out, but that jurisdiction has to be exercised sparingly and after judicial satisfaction of the court and not in a casual way, which is absolutely lacking in the instant case. Even in the case of Mohd. Shafi Vs. Mohd. Rafiq and Anr. 2007(2) RCR (Criminal) 762, it has been held that the Court cannot summon the person on the basis of examination-in-chief of the witness and the satisfaction of the Court can be arrived at, inter alia, upon completion of the cross-examination of the said witness. In view of this, the impugned order passed by the learned trial court summoning the petitioners as an additional accused and consequent 3 order passed by the appellate court below are set aside. The court below shall proceed with the trial of the case in accordance with law and also withdraw the process issued as a consequence of the impugned order. However, the State shall be at liberty to file an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. afresh, at an appropriate stage, which shall be disposed of by the learned trial court, without being influenced by any observation made in this order. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE December 10,2008 Jiten