Criminal Revision No. 2516 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision. No. 2516 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:July 06, 2010 Gurdial Singh etc. ...........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr. M.S.Sidhu,Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, Assistant Advocate General Punjab Mr.J.B.Singh,Advocate for respondent No.2 ** Sabina, J. This petition has been filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C. in short) wherein petitioners have challenged order dated 15.7.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Ferozepur whereby they were ordered to be summoned to face the trial on an application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw the petition qua petitioners No. 7-Balbir Singh and petitioner No.9-Manpreet Singh. Ordered accordingly. Criminal Revision No. 2516 of 2009 (O&M) 2 The contents of the FIR read as under:- " Yesterday i.e. on 19.4.2007 at about 2.00 P.M., I was present in my house situated in the fields and in the meantime one harvesting combine entered into our fields and started harvesting the wheat crop and my nephew Harpal Singh S/o Randhir Singh and Hira Singh S/o Surat Singh run towards our fields. The combine was driven by Manpreet Singh son of Sukhdev Singh, resident of village Ratta Therr and he was forcibly harvesting our wheat crop. Sukhdev Singh S/o Resham Singh armed with 12 bore DBBL gun, Gurdev Singh s/o Resham Singh armed with Gandasa, Harpreet Singh, s/o Sukhdev Singh armed with Barchhi, Gurmeet Singh s/o Sucha Singh armed with 12 bore DBBL gun, Amrik Singh s/o Sucha Singh armed with dang Hardeep Singh s/o Kalga Singh armed with Gandasi, Iqbal Singh s/o Kalga Singh armed with Kasia, Rachhpal Singh s/o Kashmir Singh armed with 12 bore DBBL gun, Balkar Singh S/o Gurdial Singh armed with dang, Gurdial Singh S/o Kashmir Singh armed with Neza, Kulwant Singh s/o Niranjan Singh armed with dang, Manjinder Singh s/o Kulwinder Singh armed with Dasta (Danda), resident of Village Samme wali, Lakhwinder Singh s/o Makhan Singh armed with 12 bore gun, Pritam Singh s/o Sohan Singh armed with Neza, Harbel Singh s/o Bishan Singh armed with Gandasi, Bohar Singh s/o Jaginder Singh armed with Dasta (Danda) residents of village Ratta Therr, were standing around the combine which was cutting our wheat crop. When I and my nephew Harpal Singh tried to stop the combine, then Balkar Singh and Gurdev Singh raised Criminal Revision No. 2516 of 2009 (O&M) 3 Lalkara saying that teach them lesson to stop the combine and they be not spared. In the meantime, Sukhdev Singh fired a shot towards me which hit on the lower backside of the right leg. Then Hardeep Singh gave Gandasi blow to me which hit on my head from the reverse side. Lakhwinder Singh fired a shot with his gun towards my nephew Harpal Singh and the pallets of the shot hit on the left side of the abdomen, then Amrik Singh gave a dang blow to Harpal Singh on his left thigh. Because of the injuries we sit down and started raising the noise of Bachao.. Bachao... The accused had fired 5-6 shots in the air. After hearing the sound of the shots and also hearing our noise, Joga Singh s/o Shingar Singh and Bakhshish Singh s/o Mohant Singh, Tehal Singh s/o Assa Singh and some other people reached at the spot. On seeing the people gathered there, Sukhdev Singh after putting the harvested wheat in his tractor along with combine came on the road.” Learned counsel for the petitioners on behalf of the remaining petitioners have submitted that a perusal of the FIR as well as the statement of the complainant reveal that no specific role has been attributed to petitioners No. 1 to 6 and 8. The said petitioners had been found innocent during police investigation. There was no material available before the trial Court suggesting that the said petitioners had committed the alleged offence. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have opposed the petition and have submitted that the petitioners No. 1 to 6 and 8 had come to the place of occurrence along with their other co-accused and had been rightly summoned by the trial Court to face the trial as an Criminal Revision No. 2516 of 2009 (O&M) 4 additional accused. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. Section 319 Cr.P.C. reads as under:- “319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.-(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. (2)Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. (3)Any person attending the Court although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed. (4)Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub- section (1), then- (a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and witnesses re-heard; (b) subject to the provisions of clause(a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.” Criminal Revision No. 2516 of 2009 (O&M) 5 There is no quarrel with the proposition of law that the trial Court has the power to summon a person as an additional accused when in the course of trial it appears from the evidence that the said persons not being an accused had committed any offence for which such person could be tried along with other accused. However, in the present case, petitioners No. 1 to 6 and 8 were though named in the FIR but no specific role has been attributed to them and during inquiry by the investigating agency, they were found innocent and were placed in column No.2 at the time of presentation of the final report. A perusal of the statement of the complainant-Jaswant Singh PW1, as reproduced in para 4 of the grounds of revision, reveals that no specific role has been attributed to petitioners No. 1 to 6 and 8. As per the complainant, Manpreet Singh was driving the combine and on lalkara raised by Balkar Singh and Gurdev Singh, accused Sukhdev Singh fired from his 12 bore rifle which caused the injury on the person of the complainant on his right leg. Hardeep Singh gave a gandasi blow on the head of the complainant from the reverse side. Lakhwinder Singh fired from his gun at Harpal Singh and he suffered an injury on the left side of his waist. Amrik Singh gave a dang blow on the left knee of Harpal Singh. Since no overt act is attributed to petitioners No. 1 to 6 and 8, the possibility that they have been falsely named in this case cannot be ruled out. Moreover, they were found innocent during investigation. Learned trial Court has erred in summoning petitioners No. 1 to 6 and 8 to face the trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. No cogent reasons have been given by the trial Court to support its finding that the said petitioners were necessary to be summoned to face trial as additional accused. Criminal Revision No. 2516 of 2009 (O&M) 6 Accordingly this petition qua petitioners No. 1 to 6 and 8 is allowed. The impugned order of summoning dated 15.7.2009 qua petitioners No. 1 to 6 and 8 is set aside. (Sabina) Judge July 06, 2010 arya