IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1021 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 07, 2011 State of Punjab ...Petitioner Versus Kamaljit Kaur alias Bholi & another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, DAG, Punjab, for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Sandhu, Advocate, for Mr.S.P.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. This revision petition has been filed by the State to impugn the order passed by the trial Court in declining the prayer of the prosecution to summon additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. After recording of some of the witnesses, prosecution had moved an application for summoning the additional accused, who were named in the dying-declaration statedly recorded by the Magistrate. The dying-declaration has so far not been led into evidence. The trial Court, however, has declined the prayer on the ground that the additional accused cannot be summoned on the basis of a statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. etc. To an extent, the view formed by the trial Court is justified as summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can follow only once the evidence is led before the trial Court. It would have been appropriate Criminal Revision No.1021 of 2011 (O&M) :2: for the prosecution to move such an application only once the dying- declaration has been led into evidence before the trial Court. The apprehension expressed by the State counsel that present order will stand in their way, if such an application is moved at the subsequent stage after the dying-declaration has come on record in evidence appears to be misfounded. The State would always be at liberty to move a fresh application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the basis of this evidence or any other evidence, if it reflects involvement of any other additional accused. That right of the State would always remain intact and present order could not take away such a right. At this stage, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out. The revision is, therefore, dismissed. December 07, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE