CRR No.2355 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CRR No.2355 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.01.2011 Balwinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. S.S. Narula, Advocate for the petitioner. ... Alok Singh, J (Oral). Present revision petition is filed challenging order dated 18.8.2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, thereby summoning the revisionist as an additional accused in the sessions trial pursuant to FIR No.195 dated 29.10.2008 under Sections 302, 307, 452, 323, 120-B. 148 and 149 IPC. P.S. Bassi Pathana. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned Sessions Judge has recorded no satisfaction as to whether there is any likelihood of conviction of the revisionist on the basis of the material available on the record. CRR No.2355 of 2009 2 Hon'ble the Apex Court in the matter of Michael Machado and anr. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and anr, 2000(2) RCR (Criminal) 75, in paragraph 14 has held as under:- “The court while deciding whether to invoke the power under Section 319 of the Code, must address itself about the other constraints imposed by the first limb of sub-section (4), that proceedings in respect of newly added persons shall be commenced afresh and the witnesses re-examined. The whole proceedings must be re-commenced from the beginning of the trial, summon the witnesses once again and examine them and cross-examine them in order to reach the stage where it had reached earlier. If the witnesses already examined are quite a large in number the court must seriously consider whether the objects sought to be achieved by such exercise is worth wasting the whole labour already undertaken. Unless the court is hopeful that there is reasonable prospect of the case as against the newly brought accused ending in conviction of the offence concerned we would say that the court should refrain from adopting such a course of action.” In view of the dictum of the Apex Court, before invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C., the trial Court is supposed to record satisfaction as to whether there is any likelihood of conviction of the person to be summoned as an additional accused. In the opinion of this Court, present petition is liable to be allowed. Consequently, this petition is allowed. Order dated 18.8.2009 is quashed. However, it is directed that the trial Court shall decide the CRR No.2355 of 2009 3 application moved under Section 319 Cr. P.C. afresh, in accordance with law. ( Alok Singh ) Judge 10.01.2011 sk.