CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2867 OF 2011 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: DECEMBER 21, 2011 Naresh .....Petitioner VERSUS Rampal and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. H. S. Gill, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Manuj Nagrath, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. An application filed by the prosecution for summoning the respondents as additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been declined on the ground that prayer was hit by the principle of res-judicata. It is also observed that the prosecution was required to move the court under the relevant provisions only after it was well equipped with the complete quantum of evidence available CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2867 OF 2011 :{ 2 }: with it in order to succeed against the proposed accused. Question of summoning an additional accused depends upon the evidence that is available. Such a prayer may not be open to be declined on the ground of res- judicata. At a particular stage, there may not be a sufficient evidence to summon any person as an additional accused. If subsequent thereto, some evidence is available on record and which satisfies the test for summoning any person as additional accused, then that has to be considered by the Court concerned at that stage on the basis of evidence and material that is available on record. Simply because the earlier application was declined, would not be a valid ground to decline the prayer on the principle of res-judicata. This legal position can not be in any serious dispute. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submits that against the impugned order, the petitioner has a remedy of filing a revision before the Court of Session. He is justified in making this submission. It may not now be appropriate to ask the petitioner to file a revision, once this Court has issued notice and the respondents now stand served. It would be in the fitness of the things to deal with the prayer in this petition. The trial Court can very well be asked to reconsider the prayer of the petitioner, ignoring the earlier order, where prayer was declined on the principle of res-judicata, which may not be attracted. The Court would CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2867 OF 2011 :{ 3 }: see in case sufficient material is available on record to summon the respondents as additional accused or not. As a matter of abundant caution, it is observed that this Court has not considered or applied itself on the evidence to find if there is any material, much less sufficient material, to summon the respondents as additional accused. This discretion has to be exercised by the trial Court on the basis of evidence that is before the Court by applying the legal parameters which are well defined through various judgements. The parties would be at liberty to plead their respective cases before the trial Court. The case would go back to the trial Court, which shall ignore the impugned order and consider the prayer of the petitioner afresh on the basis of evidence available on the file. The petition is disposed of accordingly. December 21, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE