CRIMINAL REVISION NO.143 OF 2003 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 12, 2008 Surinder Pal Singh and another .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab ....Respondent 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. P. S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for Mr. D. P. Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Antar Singh Brar, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Shailender Sharma, Advocate. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Petitioners, Surinder Pal Singh and Pawandeep Kaur have been summoned to face prosecution for an offence under Section 306 IPC by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala in exercise of its power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. FIR No.119 dated 17.7.2002 was registered against the petitioners as well as Amarjit Kaur and Amrit Pal Singh under Section 306 IPC. After investigation, Pawandeep Kaur, Surinder Pal Singh and Amarjit CRIMINAL REVISION NO.143 OF 2003 :{ 2 }: Singh were shown in Column No.2 in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. While directing summon of the petitioners, the Court has relied on the statement of Surjit Kaur in the FIR. Detailed reference has been made to the said statement to observe that Amrit Pal Singh was not challaned, who was committed alongwith co-accused. Ultimately Pawandeep Kaur and Surinder Pal Singh, petitioners, have been ordered to be summoned through non-bailable warrants. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that action of the Court in summoning the petitioners under Section 319 Cr.P.C. without recording any evidence can not be sustained. In support of his submission, he has drawn my attention to Ranjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1998 (4) RCR (Criminal) 552. In Ranjit Singh's case (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court, after referring to various judgments, held as under:- “16. It is clear that during the said stage the Court of Session can deal only with the accused who is referred to in Section 209. The accused who can appear or can be brought before a Session Court at that stage is only that accused who is referred to in Section 209. Section 227 deals with the power of the court to decide whether that accused is to be discharged or not. If he is not discharged the Session Court is obliged to frame a charge against the accused as per Section 228 of the Code. Thereafter the plea of that accused has to be recorded as enjoined by Section 229. The stage of evidence collection commence only next. (vide Sections 230 & 231 of the CRIMINAL REVISION NO.143 OF 2003 :{ 3 }: Code); 17. So from the state of committal till the Session court reaches the stage indicated in Section 230 of the Code that Court can deal with only the accused referred to in Section 209 of the Code. There is no intermediary stage till then for the Session Court to add any other person to the array of the accused. 18. Thus, once the Session Court takes cognizance of the offence pursuant to the committal order the only other stage when the Court is empowered to add any other person to the array of the accused is after reaching evidence collection when powers under Section 319 of the Code can be invoked. We are unable to find any other power for the Session Court to permit addition of new person or persons to the array of the accused. Of course it is not necessary for the court to wait until the entire evidence is collected for exercising the said powers.” From the ratio of law as laid down in Ranjit Singh's case (supra), it is clearly made out that once the Session Court takes cognizance of the offence pursuant to the committal order, the only other stage when the Court is empowered to add any other person to the array of the accused is after reaching evidence collection when powers under Section 319 of the Code can be invoked. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that it is unable to find any other power for the Session Court to permit addition of new person or CRIMINAL REVISION NO.143 OF 2003 :{ 4 }: persons to the array of the accused. Further a bare perusal of Section 319 Cr.P.C. would show that a person can be summoned as an additional accused to be tried with the accused already facing prosecution only if some evidence is recorded and involvement of such a person is evident on that count. The Additional accused can not be summoned to face prosecution without recording any evidence by the Court. It may need a mention that Ranjit Singh's case (supra) has also been doubted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the matter has been referred to a Larger Bench by in the case of Dharam Pal and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 273. This Court in Criminal Revision No.2528 of 2003, decided on 21.11.2006, has already held that till the time any different view is taken in Dharam Pal's case (supra), the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranjit Singh (supra) would prevail. Accordingly, no additional accused can be joined in trial by a Court of Session, unless the stage of Section 319 Cr.P.C. is reached. Concededly, in the present case, the petitioners have been summoned without recording of any evidence. The impugned order, as such, can not be sustained, the same is set-aside. The case will go back to the Trial Court. It is made clear that the parties would be at liberty to move any application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in case the relevant evidence comes on record, indicating involvement of any person who can be joined as an additional accused in terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments. CRIMINAL REVISION NO.143 OF 2003 :{ 5 }: The present petition is accordingly allowed. September 12,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE