Criminal Revision No. 1065 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1065 of 2010 Date of Decision: 07.04.2010 Baljit Singh son of Chanan Singh, Basti Chandigarh Dakhli Jia Bagga, P.S. Station Sadar Ferozepur, District Ferozepur. ... Revision-Petitioner Versus 1. State of Punjab. 2. Harpal Singh son of Gurnam Singh; 3. Reshal Singh son of Gurnam Singh; 4. Major Singh son of Kashmir Singh; 5. Gurmeet Singh son of Kashmir Singh; 6. Sukhdeep Singh son of Karaj Singh; 7. Kali son of Major Singh; all residents of Basti Chandigarh Dakhli Jia Bagga, P.S. Station Sadar Ferozepur, District Ferozepur. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Gurjeet Singh Kaura, Advocate, for the revision-petitioner. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This revision-petition is directed against the order dated 22.03.2010, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Criminal Revision No. 1065 of 2010 2 Ferozepur, vide which, the application, under Section 319 Cr.P.C., moved for summoning Major Singh, Member Panchayat son of Kashmir Singh, Sukhdeep Singh son of Karaj Singh, Resham Singh son of Gurnam Singh, Gurmit Singh son of Kashmir Singh, and, Kali son of Major Singh, as additional accused, was dismissed. 2. I have heard the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, and, have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 3. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that, at the time of registration of the case, the names of the aforesaid persons, were mentioned, in the FIR, but, they were not challaned. He further submitted that Daljit Singh, PW3, appeared, in the Court, wherein, he categorically stated, that the aforesaid persons, actively participated, in the commission of crime. He further submitted that, from the statement of Daljit Singh, PW3, it was prima-facie established, that the aforesaid persons, sought to be summoned, as additional accused, were the perpetrators of crime alongwith the accused already challaned. He further submitted that, the Court below, without taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case, as also the statement of Daljit Singh, PW3, illegally declined the application, under Section 319 Cr.P.C. He further submitted that the order impugned, being illegal and perverse, is liable to be set aside. 4. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The mere fact, that the names of Criminal Revision No. 1065 of 2010 3 the petitioners, were mentioned, in the FIR, did not mean, that they committed the crime. Since the Police found, that they did not participate, in the commission of crime, they were not challaned. No doubt, during the pendency of the trial, an application, under Section 319 Cr.P.C., for summoning them, as additional accused, could be filed, if evidence, had been produced, by the prosecution, which could reasonably lead to their conviction. The statement of the prosecutrix, a material witness, was recorded. She did not name the aforesaid persons, as the perpetrators of crime. She only stated that Harpal Singh, accused, already challaned, entered her room, locked the door from inside and after slapping her, manhandled her. She did not name the aforesaid persons, in her statement, as accused, who participated, in the alleged commission of crime. Daljit Singh, PW3, no doubt, in his examination- in-chief, stated that, when he went, to the room, on hearing the cries of the prosecutrix, the persons aforesaid, were standing outside the same. The mere fact, that the aforesaid persons, were allegedly standing outside the room, did not mean, that they allegedly participated, in the commission of crime. In Micheal Machado & Another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, 2000(2), RCR (Crl.), 75 (SC), the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect, that the Court, at the time of exercising the power/discretion, vested in it, for summoning an additional accused, the Court must record satisfaction, that the evidence, produced could reasonably lead to the conviction of the person, sought to be summoned. In Sarabjit Singh & another Vs. State of Punjab & another, 2009(3), RCR, 388, it was held, that a Criminal Revision No. 1065 of 2010 4 person, should not be summoned, to face trial, if prima-facie case, was made out against him. A person, should be summoned only, when Court, finds that, evidence on record, is such, which would reasonably lead to his conviction. In Kailash Vs. State of Rajasthan & another, 2008(2), RCR, 200, it was also held that, a person, could not be summoned, as additional accused, under Section 319 Cr.P.C., merely, on the ground, that some evidence, had come, on the file, or that he was named, in the FIR. The trial Court, after taking into consideration, the evidence of Daljit Singh, PW3 and of the prosecutrix, was right, in coming to the conclusion, that the evidence, on record, could not reasonably lead to the conviction of the persons, sought to be summoned, as additional accused. The trial Court, was, thus, right in declining the application, under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The order impugned, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court. The same is liable to be upheld. 5. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed. 07.04.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE