IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2895 of 2011 TARA DEVI SHARMA @ LAL MUNI SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the Petitioner : Shri Ram Suhawan Singh, Advocate For the State : Shri Ram Chandra Singh, APP ------- 2/ 23.3.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of having received the evidence of three witnesses in Complaint Case no. 912 C of 2009, Shri S.K. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Danapur, did not summon the accused, namely, Ram Gopal Bishwakarma, Manohar, Anil, Sunil Bishwakarma, Munnu Bangali and Laxman Das Gupta as additional accused under section 319 of the Cr.P.C. The learned magistrate, while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner, was holding that the witnesses had really named them but had not given any role or assigned any act against the above named persons, who were sought to be summoned under section 319 of the Code so as to justify an order to the above effect. A perusal of section 319 of the Cr.P.C. may indicate that any person not being the accused, if appeared from evidence, which could have come in course of an enquiry into, or trial of an offence, is found also to have committed the offence, then only he could be summoned. What this court feels is that when the law requires the evidence to point out the commission of any offence by any person other than that or those which could be on trial of the case, then it expects the evidence of such class and nature as to indicate the 2 commission of any of the acts which may constitute an offence or which may, in part or in many parts, may constitute an offence. In the present set of facts, the magistrate has noted down that it was true that three witnesses had named them also but, they have not assigned any act allegedly committed by any of the above named persons indicating that they had committed any offence. I have pointed out the difference between the provisions of sections 227, 228 and 319 of the Code of Criminal procedure in a judgment reported in 2011(1) PLJR 982 Dr. Lal Babu Singh and anr. Vs. State of Bihar and anr. and I have already indicated as to what is the degree of evidence which is required to be adduced in trial so as to permitting the court to act under section 319 of the Cr.P.C. What I wanted to add more to the above decision was what I have just pointed out that mere evidence and mere naming of a person in that without assigning any act, which, by itself or in tandem with other acts, could be constituting an offence, may not be sufficient to create the jurisdiction of a court to summon as additional accused under section 319 of the Cr.P.C. The present appears a case of that class and, in that view of the matter, the court does not find any impropriety committed by the court below in passing the impugned order. The petition appears of no merit. It is dismissed. Anil/ ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)