IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision Petition No. 682 of 20097 Date of Decision: 26.3.2008. Jaipal and others. ....... Petitioners through Shri Mahavir Sandhu, Advocate. Versus State of Haryana. ....... Respondent through Shri Sidarth Sarup, Assistant Advocate General. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This revision petition is directed against order dated 29.3.2007 vide which the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kurukshetra (hereinafter described as `the trial Court') summoned the petitioners, Jaipal, Kesh Raj and Ajay, on an application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., to face trial in a case registered vide F.I.R.No.55 dated 4.4.2005 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325, 332, 353, 186, 394, 307 of the I.P.C. at Police Station, Kurukshetra. The F.I.R. in question was lodged in the backdrop of the violence that took place during the course of elections to the Gram Crl.Revision Petition No.682 of 2007 -2- .... Panchayat, Jyotisar in which the police party was attacked. The investigation was carried out and the challan was presented in the Court. During the course of trial, Shamsher Singh, Head Constable was examined as PW8. In his deposition, he named the petitioners as those persons, who had attacked him. It was stated that Jaipal son of Ram Sarup, Harijan, of Jyotisar gave a blow on his back with a danda; Ajay son of Sawan Ram Yadav, resident of Dera Parshadi Wala gave a danda blow on his left arm and Kakko son of Parshadi gave a lathi blow on his right knee and that when Balbir Singh, Advocate, Narain Dutt and Dinesh came to rescue him, accused -Ram Kumar, Sawan Ram, Kesh Raj alias Kesho, Sat Pal, and Ranjit alias Johar caused injuries with their respective weapons. Since other accused persons except Jaipal, Kesh Raj and Ajay were facing trial, they were summoned pursuant to the provisions of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. In the examination- in- chief, PW8-Shamsher Singh also clarified that the name of Sawan had been wrongly mentinoed and in fact, it was Kesh Raj. An opportunity to cross-examine this witness was given to the counsel for the accused persons, but they could not get any effective result therefrom and rather, stated that the cross-examination be deferred and one of them reserved her right after the decision of the application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the Crl.Revision Petition No.682 of 2007 -3- .... impugned order, contended that there was no evidence before the trial Court which could have justified the passing thereof. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Michael Machado & Anr. Versus Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., 2000(2) R.C.R. (Crl.) 75 (S.C.) wherein it was observed as under:- “The basic requirements for invoking the above section 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 entertained 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 is that for such offence that other person could as well as tried along wit the already arraigned accused. But even then, what is conferred on the Court is only a discretion as could be discerned from the words “the Court may proceed against such person.” The discretionary power so conferred should be exercised only to achieve criminal justice. It is not that the Court should turn against another person whenever it comes across evidence connecting that another Crl.Revision Petition No.682 of 2007 -4- .... person also with the offence. A judicial exercise is called for, keeping a conspectus of the case, including the stage at which the trial has proceeded already and the quantum of evidence collected till then, and also the amount of time which the Court had spent for collecting such evidence. It must be remembered that there is no compelling duty on the Court to proceed against other persons.” On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State contended that there was sufficient material on record by way of the testimony of PW8-Shamsher Singh to summon the petitioners as accused to face trial in the F.I.R. in question and, therefore, they cannot say that there was no material to warrant their summoning. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi Versus Ram Kishan Rohtagi & Ors., 1983(1) R.C.R. (Crl.) 73 (S.C.), their Lordships of the Supreme, Court, while considering whether prosecution can produce evidence to satisfy the Court that other accused against whom proceedings have been dropped or quashed or those who have not been arrayed as accused, have also committed an offence in order to enable it to take cognizance against them and try them along with the other accused, cautioned in the following words:- “But we would hasten to add that this is really an extraordinary power which is conferred on the Court and should be used very Crl.Revision Petition No.682 of 2007 -5- .... sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against the other person against whom action has not been taken.” The observations as reproduced above of their Lordships of the Apex Court made in Michael Machado & Arn. Versus Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (supra), on which the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance, are the guiding factors for the Courts to invoke the power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. When the impugned order is tested in the light of the above quoted law laid down by the Supreme Court, it becomes clear that the learned trial Court has not committed any error while passing the same. The statement of PW8-Shamsher Singh is very categoric. He has also reflected in the statement the ability to remember the persons as he correctly identified a number of accused persons present in the Court. Besides, an opportunity to cross-examine him was given and it was for the counsel of the accused persons to shatter his testimony, which could not be done. He has minutely stated the details of the sequence of events and specifically named the petitioners as the persons who caused injuries to him and others. Thus, having regard to the fact that there was quality evidence in the shape of testimony of PW8-Shamsher Singh, the resorting of power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. in order to summon the petitioners to stand trial cannot be said to be either arbitrary, or not in consonance with the observations of the Apex Court and the expectation of the provisions of the said Section. Crl.Revision Petition No.682 of 2007 -6- .... Consequently, this revision petition is devoid of any merit and is dismissed as such. March 26,2008 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge