Crl.Rev.No.3037 of 2009 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev.No.3037 of 2009 (O&M). Decided on: February 16, 2010. Malkeet Singh and another. .. Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and another .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI * * * PRESENT Mr.A.S.Kalra, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms.Shubhra Singh, DAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State. Mr.Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate, for respondent No.2. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Malkeet Singh and Balwinder Singh have filed this revision petition against the order dated 22.09.2009, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, vide which order dated 22.07.2009, passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sirsa, dismissing the application for summoning the petitioners as additional accused to face trial along with three others has been set aside. Main contention of counsel for the petitioners is that . . . 1 Crl.Rev.No.3037 of 2009 (O&M) the statement of PW.3 Gurmeet Singh complainant was recorded prior to the filing of first application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., which was got dismissed as withdrawn on 19.02.2004. Thereafter, the statement of Jit Singh PW.4 was recorded. On the basis of the statements of two witnesses, the petitioners have been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Counsel for the petitioner contends that there is absolutely no sufficient material available on the record to summon the petitioners as additional accused nor the said evidence is sufficient enough to warrant conviction, in any manner, and that the trial Court in ignorance of the principles laid down in Micheal Machado and another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & anr. 2000 (2), RCR (Crl.) Page- 75 , has illegally summoned. Counsel contends that the said principles of law have not been appreciated by the revisional Court nor by the trial Court which had opted to summon the petitioners as additional accused after the remand by the revisional Court. Counsel for the complainant, at this stage, informs that the trial is at the stage of recording the statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Taking into consideration the stage of the trial, I am of the opinion that appreciation of evidence of Gurmeet Singh PW.3 and Jit Singh PW.4, is required to be made, at this stage, to determine the validity of summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Neither the revisional Court nor the summoning Court has properly . . . 2 Crl.Rev.No.3037 of 2009 (O&M) appreciated the principles which are required to be adopted before summoning the petitioners. One of the basic requirement for exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., is that there should be, prima facie, sufficient evidence to warrant conviction. Merely on the basis of suspicion or vague allegations, the exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., is not appropriate. Taking into consideration the stage of the trial, I propose to dispose of this petition with a direction that all pleas taken up in this petition can be raised by the petitioner before the trial Court. The trial court on the basis of the said contentions would be free to grant the benefit of acquittal or benefit of doubt to the petitioners. Of course, the decision of the prosecution Agency not to challan the petitioners finding them innocent can be relied upon by the petitioners to create a doubt regarding the credibility of the witnesses. They will also be entitled to lead their defence evidence and to summon the report determined by the police on investigation in their favour and ultimately derive benefit of the same in accordance with law. This petition is disposed of with above said liberty to the petitioners. It is further directed that the trial Court will expeditiously dispose of the trial by giving a fair opportunity to the petitioners and other accused to produce the evidence. However, disposal of this petition will not be deemed to be an adverse circumstance against the petitioners at the time of final adjudication of the trial. . . . 3 Crl.Rev.No.3037 of 2009 (O&M) Anything mentioned in this order will not prejudice the rights of the parties. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE February 16, 2010. rka . . . 4