Criminal Revision No. 853 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 853 of 2009 Date of Decision: 03.03.2010 1. Gurdeep Singh @ Deepa son of Sh. Bhola resident of Amargarh Klare, District Ludhiana, Punjab. 2. Paramjit Kaur wife of Sh. Bhola resident of Amargarh Klare, District Ludhiana, Punjab. ... Revision-Petitioners Versus State of Punjab. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. G.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. T.S. Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent – State. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This revision-petition is directed against the order dated 18.12.08, rendered by the Court of Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide which, it summoned the petitioners, as additional accused, for facing trial, under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC, in pursuance of the application, under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 2. FIR No. 240 dated 31.10.07, under Sections 302 and 397 Criminal Revision No. 853 of 2009 2 IPC, Police Station Sidhwan Bet, District Ludhiana, was registered against Jagsir Singh son of Dayal Singh Mazbi, resident of Amargarh Kaler, District Ludhiana. The names of the petitioners, were not mentioned, in the FIR. Even when the challan was presented, against Jagsir Singh, the names of the petitioners, were not kept in column No. 2. 3. After the charge was framed, against Jagsir Singh, and the statement of the complainant, was recorded, both the petitioners, were involved, in the conspiracy, hatched to commit the murder of Happy. 4. An application, under Section 319 Cr.P.C., was moved, in pursuance whereof, the petitioners, were summoned, as additional accused, to face trial for the aforesaid offences. 5. Feeling aggrieved the instant revision-petition, has been filed by the revision-petitioners. 6. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 7. The Counsel for the revision-petitioners, submitted that the trial Court, did not apply mind, to the facts and circumstances of the case, as also the statement of the complainant, to record satisfaction, that the evidence produced, could reasonably lead to the conviction of the petitioners. He further submitted that the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C., should be sparingly invoked. He further submitted that, from the statement of the complainant, nothing was made out, that the petitioners, conspired with their co-accused, in the alleged commission of murder of Happy. He further submitted that the order impugned, Criminal Revision No. 853 of 2009 3 being illegal, is liable to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, submitted that, the trial Court, after going through the statement of the complainant, was right, in coming to the conclusion, that it was established, that the petitioners, were involved, in the conspiracy, which was hatched with their co-accused, for the commission of murder of Happy. He further submitted that the order impugned, being legal, is not liable to be set aside. 9. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be accepted, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. No doubt, the Court, is vested with the power, to summon any person, as an additional accused, if the evidence, is produced, against him/her, and it appears, therefrom, that he/she committed the crime. In Micheal Machado & Another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, 2000(2), RCR (Crl.), 75 (SC), the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect, that the Court, at the time of exercising the power/discretion, vested in it, for summoning an additional accused, the Court must record satisfaction, that the evidence, produced could reasonably lead to the conviction of the person, sought to be summoned. The perusal of the order impugned, does not, in any way, show that, mind was applied, to the facts and circumstances of the case, as also to the statement of the complainant, so as to come to the conclusion, that the evidence, produced could reasonably lead to the conviction of the accused. In the Criminal Revision No. 853 of 2009 4 absence of recording such a satisfaction, the order impugned, cannot be said to be legal. The same, is, thus, liable to be set aside, and the case deserves to be remanded for fresh decision of the application, under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 10. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, is accepted. The order dated 18.12.08, impugned, in this case, is set aside. The case, is remanded, to the Court of Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, with a direction, to decide the application, under Section 319 Cr.P.C., keeping in view the observations, made above, and the principle of law, laid down, in Micheal Machado & Another's case (supra). Any observation, made in this order, shall not be taken, as an expression of mind, on merits of the case. 03.03.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE