IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Revision No.1256 of 2009 Date of decision : 28.1.2010 Sher Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.D.N.Ganeriwala, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Harinder S.Beniwal, DAG, Haryana. Mr.A.S.Sullar, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 5. Sabina J. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 7.2.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Sirsa whereby the application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) for summoning additional accused, was dismissed. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Notice of motion was issued to respondents No.2 and 5 only as the counsel for the petitioner has not pressed the petition against respondents No.3, 4, 6 and 7. Respondents No.2 to 7 were found innocent by the Investigating Agency during investigation of the case. PW-1-Sher Singh, when he appeared in the witness box, has deposed that respondent No.2-Gurlal Singh was having a bag of cartridges and had supplied the same to Jeet Singh whereas, PW-5- Jagseer Singh had raised a lalkara by saying that a lesson be taught to the complainant party and this was the order of their guru. The cross-examination of the said witness was not completed and was deferred as the prosecution had moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Crl.Revision No.1256 of 2009 Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, has held that no active role was attributed to the respondents nor they were armed with weapons. In these circumstances, there was no sufficient material on record to summon them to face trial as accused. Respondents No.2 and 5 were found innocent during investigation. Sher Singh while appearing in the witness box, has not deposed to the effect that respondents No.2 and 5 were armed with any weapon rather a lalkara has been attributed to respondent No.5 and respondent no.2 is alleged to be carrying bag of cartridges which were supplied to Jeet Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out that during investigation, any recovery of remaining cartridges was ever effected from Gurlal Singh. Moreover of the cross-examination of PW-1 had not been completed. In these circumstances, no interference by this Court is called for. Dismissed. [ Sabina ] Judge 28.1.2010 sd 2