Crl. Revision No.1059 of 2011 (O & M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.1059 of 2011 (O & M) Date of Decision: 20.07.2011. Inderjit Singh ……Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …...Respondent Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. D.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Addl. AG, Punjab. L.N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) This revision petition has been filed by Inderjit Singh assailing order dated 27.04.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala thereby summoning the petitioner as additional accused in FIR No.28 dated 10.03.2010 registered under Sections 307, 326, 324, 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), on prosecution application moved under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. The prosecution in its application alleged that the petitioner is a rich person and his father is serving in Police Crl. Revision No.1059 of 2011 (O & M) - 2 - department and on account of his influence, he got himself declared as innocent wrongly by the police during investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that cross- examination of complainant injured Harjit Singh PW-2 was not concluded and, therefore, the said statement could not be taken into consideration. It was also pointed out that there should be fresh evidence before the trial Court for summoning additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C and additional accused cannot be summoned under the said provision on the basis of the material collected during investigation. Reliance in support of these contentions has been placed on two judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sarabjit Singh and another versus State of Punjab and another, 2009 (3) RCR (Criminal) 388 and Mohd Shafi versus Mohd. Rafiq and another, 2007(2) RCR (Criminal) 762. Learned State counsel has opposed the aforesaid contentions by submitting that the petitioner exercising his undue influence got himself declared innocent during investigation, but in fact the witnesses even during investigation made statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C regarding involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence. It was also submitted that even in the witness box, the complainant has implicated the petitioner and, therefore, there was sufficient material before the trial Court to summon the petitioner as additional accused. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not refer to any material collected Crl. Revision No.1059 of 2011 (O & M) - 3 - during investigation to declare the petitioner as innocent. On the contrary, admittedly witnesses examined during investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C implicated the petitioner also in the commission of the offences in question. Even in the witness box, the complainant stated about overt acts of the petitioner. Consequently there was fresh material before the trial Judge for summoning the petitioner as additional accused in addition to the material collected during investigation. Judgments in the cases of Sarabjit Singh (supra) and Mohd Shafi (supra) cited by counsel for the petitioner are not attracted to the facts of the instant case. On the contrary, the discretion exercised by the trial Judge on perusal of the material on record cannot be said to be perverse or illegal nor it can be said that the trial judge has exercised jurisdiction not vesting in him or refused to exercise jurisdiction vesting in him so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition which is accordingly dismissed. However, nothing observed hereinbefore shall influence the merits of the case in the trial Court. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 20.07.2011. A.kaundal