IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33086 of 2007 1. RANBIR KUMAR SINGH @ RANBIR SINGH. 2. RANDHIR KUMAR SINGH. BOTH SONS OF LATE ARJUN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KOLAKKHURD, P.S. JAGDISHPUR, DISTRICT-BHAGALPUR. ………………………………………………………………PETITIONERS. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR………………………….OPPOSITE PARTY. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Uma Kant Prasad, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. ----------- O R D E R The two petitioners herein through this application have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 13.6.2007 passed in Sessions Trial No.1422 of 2005 arising out of Jagdishpur P.S. Case No.167 of 2003, by Sri S.N. Singh, learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Bhagalpur, whereby the petitioners have been summoned as additional accused to face the trial alongwith those already facing the trial under the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. It appears that Jagdishpur P.S. Case No.167 of 2003 was registered under Sections 307/34 and other allied Sections of the Penal Code as also Section 27 of the Arms Act against three persons named therein on the basis of the fardbeyan given by one Panchanand Singh at 20.30 hours on 19.9.2003 in respect of an occurrence which took place earlier that day at about 19.30 hours. It further appears that the police after due investigation submitted a chargesheet only against Leader Singh even as the investigation in respect of the two - 2 - petitioners herein were kept pending. The case of accused Leader Singh in due course was committed to the court of sessions where it was numbered as Sessions Trial No.1422 of 2005. In course of the trial of accused Leader Singh, six witnesses on behalf of the prosecution were examined. Out of the six witnesses P.W.5, informant Panchanand Singh and P.W.6, the injured Ajit Singh, in course of their testimony in court named the two petitioners herein alongwith Leader Singh in respect of their participation in the crime. P.W.6 categorically stated of Leader Singh having fired at the instigation of these petitioners. That apart P.Ws.3 and 4, who purportedly have been designated as hearsay witnesses, have also named the two petitioners herein as having participated at the occurrence. It further appears that on the basis of the above materials the prosecution filed a petition under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the two petitioners herein as additional accused to face the trial alongwith Leader Singh which was allowed by the impugned order even as the investigation against them was pending before the police. The provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. comes into operation at the post cognizance stage when it appears to the court from the evidence recorded at the trial that any person other than those named as offenders appears to have committed any offence in relation to the incident for which the co-accused are on trial. The basic requirement for invoking the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. is that it should appear to the court from the evidence collected during trial or in the - 3 - inquiry that some other person who is not arraigned as an accused in that case has committed an offence for which that person could be tried together with the accused already arraigned. The court is required to have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence already collected regarding two aspects, namely, that the other person has committed an offence and that for such offence that other person could be tried alongwith already arraigned accused. Gainful reference for the purpose may be made to the decision of Michael Machadeo Vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2000)3 SCC 262. Sub sections (1) and (2) of Section 319 Cr.P.C. provides for a situation when a court hearing a case against a certain accused person finds from the evidence that some person or persons other than accused before it, is/are also connected in the very offence or any connected offence; and empowers the court to proceed against such person or persons for the offence which he or they appears to have committed and to issue process for the purpose. For the purpose it is not necessary for the court to wait till the entire evidence is collected for exercising the said powers. In the instant case even as the investigation was pending in respect of the two petitioners the trial of Leader Singh was taken up and as many as six witnesses had been examined out of whom four witnesses have deposed in respect of the participation of the petitioners in the said crime. In Jogender Singh Vs. State (AIR 1979 SC 339) it was held that he expression “any person not being an - 4 - accused” includes a person who has been dropped by the police during investigation and against whom the evidence comes before the court that he is also involved in the offence. Then again in Municipal Corporation Vs. R.K.Rohtagi (AIR 1983 SC 67), it was held by the Apex Court that the accused person against whom proceedings have been quashed is also a person “not being the accused” and the court can take cognizance against him and try him alongwith the other accused if the prosecution produces evidence and the court is satisfied about his involvement in the alleged offence. In view of the categoric findings of the Apex Court, referred to above, I find no apparent illegality or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Bhagalpur, summoning the petitioners under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, there being no merit in this application, the same is dismissed. (Abhijit Sinha,J) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated: The 1st day of May,2009. Pradeep Srivastava/A.F.R.