Criminal Misc. No.M-5621 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-5621 of 2008 Date of decision : 25.8.2008 Massa Ram .....Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. G.S.Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Manjari Nehru, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. S. D. ANAND, J. In the course of the trial in case FIR No.91 dated 11.5.2002 under Sections 323, 324, 326, 148, 149, 160 IPC, Police Station, Sultanpur Lodhi, the examination-in-chief of PW-1 Satnam Singh and PW-2 Mohinder Kaur was recorded on 10.10.2007 and their cross-examination was deferred. It was on 5.11.2007 that the first informant filed a plea under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for the summoning of petitioner Massa Ram to face a trial for the offences under Sections 148 and 326 IPC, read with Section 149 IPC. That plea filed by the first informant was endorsed by the State. It came to be allowed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 17.12.2007 (Annexure P-12). Criminal Misc. No.M-5621 of 2008 -2- **** In support of the plea that the allowance of a plea of this category in this manner was invalid, reliance is placed on Mohd. Shafi Vs. Mohd. Rafiq and another 2007(2) RCR (Criminal) 762. The essential grievance in the context is that plea could not have been allowed since PW-1 Satnam Singh and PW-2 Mohinder Kaur had not been subjected to cross-examination. Learned State counsel argues that the judgment in Mohd. Shafi's case (supra) is not supportive of the plea advocated on behalf of the petitioner. The plea on behalf of the petitioner deserves outright allowance. In Mohd. Shafi's case (supra), the Apex Court recorded a clinching finding that the Court could exercise jurisdiction in terms of Section 319 Cr.P.C. only if it is satisfied “that there exists a possibility that the accused so summoned is in all likelihood would be convicted.” It was further held by the Apex Court that “such satisfaction can be arrived at inter-alia upon completion of the cross- examination of the said witness”. There is, thus, no justification for the plea on behalf of the State that ruling in Mohd. Shafi's case (supra) is not supportive of the plea raised before this Court. The petition shall stand allowed accordingly. The impugned order dated 17.12.2007 shall stand set aside. The first informant shall, however, be at liberty to file another plea under Section 319 Cr.P.C. but only after the Criminal Misc. No.M-5621 of 2008 -3- **** witnesses, from whose testimony sustenance is proposed to be drawn for allowance of the request, have been subjected to cross- examination. If such a plea comes to be preferred, learned Trial Court would dispose it of in accordance with law completely uninfluenced by whatever observations may have been made by this Court while disposing of the present petition. Disposed of accordingly. August 25, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter: Yes/No Criminal Misc. No.M-5621 of 2008 -4- ****