CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1500 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 27, 2008 Balwinder Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. B. S. Bhasaur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, AAG, Punjab, for the State. Mr. H. R. Nohria, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL) The petitioner is aggrieved against the action of the Trial Court in declining to summon Bahadur Singh as an additional accused to face prosecution with other accused for offences under Sections 323, 324, 34 IPC. While declining the prayer, the Trial Court CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1500 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: has noticed that as per the evidence, Bahadur Singh had only raised a lalkra to catch hold of the witness. The Trial Court considered this evidence not sufficient to summon him as an additional accused in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that raising of a lalkara would show substantial involvement of Bahadur Singh. He further says that the Court failed to take notice of the fact that he was also carrying a revolver. There is no indication from the record that this evidence has been led in this manner as stated by the counsel. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has referred to a case of Kailash Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 200, wherein it has been held that merely because some witnesses have mentioned the name of a person or that there is some material against that person, the discretion under Section 319 Cr.P.C. would not be used by the Court. This power is referred to an extra ordinary power, which is conferred on the Court and should be exercised very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exists. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard are as under:- “A glance at these provisions 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.” It is not, CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1500 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: therefore, that merely because some witnesses have mentioned the name of such person or that there is some material against that person, the discretion under Section 319 Cr.P.C. would be used by the Court. This 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. This Court has, time and again, declared that the discretion under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 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. This power has to be essentially exercised only on the basis of the evidence. It could, therefore, be used only after the legal evidence comes on record and from that evidence it appears that the concerned person has committed an offence. The words “it appears” are not to be read lightly. In that the court would have to be circumspect while exercising this power and would have to apply the caution which the language of the Section demands.” As has been observed in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ram Krishan Rohtagi & Ors., 1983 (1) RCR (Criminal) 73 and Mohd. Shafi Vs. Mohd. Rafiq & Anr., 2007 (2) RCR (Criminal) 762, the standard of evidence, which is essential for summoning an additional accused is by now well laid down in all these judgments. In Mohd. Shafi's case (supra), it is observed as CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1500 OF 2008 :{ 4 }: under:- “......it is evident that before a court exercises its discretionary jurisdiction in terms of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it must arrived at the satisfaction that there exists a possibility that the accused so summoned in all likelihood would be convicted. Such satisfaction can be arrived at inter alia upon completion of the cross-examination of the said witness. For the said purpose, the court concerned may also like to consider other evidence.” Reference is also made to the following observations of the Court in Michael Machado Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2000 (2) RCR (Criminal) 75:- “The Court, while examining an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., has also to bear in mind that there is no compelling duty on the court to proceed against other persons. In a nutshell, it means that for exercise of discretion under Section 319 Cr.P.C., all relevant factors, including the one noticed above, have to be kept in view and an order is not required to be made mechanically merely on the ground that some evidence had come on record implicating the person sought to be added as an accused.” From the evidence that has been placed in this case, it will not be possible to say that there will be likelihood of conviction of Bahadur Singh on the basis of what has been stated against him. CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1500 OF 2008 :{ 5 }: Accordingly, no case is made out for interference in the impugned order. Dismissed. November 27 ,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE