1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 1923 of 2009 Date of Decision: 29.7.2009 *** Deeapk @ Deepak K. Bhati .. Petitioner Vs. Haryana State & Anr. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 21.4.2009 passed by the learned trial court by virtue of which the application of prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning and trial of petitioner and seven other persons along with co- accused has been allowed. Heard. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was found innocent during the investigation by the police and hence he was not challaned. It has further been contended that no specific role has been attributed to the present petitioner and in absence of any fresh material against the petitioner, the learned trial court has fallen into error while summoning the petitioner as an additional accused. Provisions of S. 319 Cr. P. C. would suggest that during the trial it has to appear from the evidence that a person not being an accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused who are also being tried. The key words in this Section are 'it appears from the evidence', 'any person', 'has committed any offence. This is apart from the fact that such person against whom such discretion is used, should be a person who could be tried together with the accused against whom the trial is already going on. The discretion under S. 319 has to be exercised very sparingly and with caution and only when the concerned Court is satisfied that some offence has been committed by such person. In 2 the instant case, the perusal of FIR makes it clear that the petitioner was specifically named therein as a member of unlawful assembly, which committed the offence and he was armed with a pistol and had fired from it. Though, he was not challaned by the police, but the learned trial court after scanning the statements of Sudhir Kumar (PW1) an eye witness and Bijender (PW2), the complainant, which underwent the test of lengthy cross-examination by the defence counsel and after analyzing the other material available on record, concluded that the petitioner and other persons were also involved in the commission of offence and they are liable to be tried along with the co-accused. The Court after applying its mind judicially has exercised its discretionary power by issuing process against the petitioner. In the above facts, no fault could be found with the approach of the learned trial court while summoning the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The revision petition being without any merit is dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE July 29,2009 Jiten