1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 444 of 2009 Date of Decision: 9.10.2009 *** Narinder Pal Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. P.S. Paul, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Sra, Addl. A.G. Punjab Mr. H.S. Thiara, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner is aggrieved with order dated 6.1.2009 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 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 petitioners in the FIR as well as by the complainant in his statement recorded before the Court as PW.1 and as such, the learned trial court has fallen into error while summoning the petitioners 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 2 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 the instant case, the perusal of FIR makes it clear that the petitioner was specifically named therein as one of the participant in the commission of offence. He though was not challaned by the police, but the learned trial court after scanning the statement of PW-2 Labh Singh, 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 was also involved in the commission of offence and he is liable to be tried along with the co-accused. His case could not be found to be distinguished from 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. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE October 9,2009 Jiten