IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) Criminal Revision No. 1372 of 2010. Date of Decision : 8.8.2011. Prem Kumar ...... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent (2) Criminal Revision No. 1947 of 2010. Date of Decision : 8.8.2011. Dayal Chand & others ...... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. J.S. Bhullar, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Navjot Sidhu, Advocate, for the complainant. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This order shall dispose of above mentioned two revisions as they have arisen out of order dated January 15th, 2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Ad-hoc) Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, whereby, application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was allowed and the petitioners were summoned to face trial under Sections 148, 307, 323, 324, 427 and 452 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. 2. On the statement of Manjit Singh, FIR was registered against Nand Lal and others. During investigation of the case, statement of Manjit Singh was also recorded. He stated that along with the accused who have been challaned in the present case, there were 4-5 more persons not known to him, who came to his courtyard after breaking the gate and caused injuries with their respective weapons. The complainant also made supplementary Criminal Revision No. 1372 of 2010 (2) statement (Annexure P-1) before the Investigating Officer in which he named the present petitioners as accused. However, charge-sheet was filed against Nand Lal and others but not against the petitioners. During trial, statement of Manjit Singh (PW-1) was recorded. He again raised accusing finger against the petitioners. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, in his order has taken this piece of evidence into consideration and summoned the petitioners to face trial along with their co-accused. 3. It is gratifying to note that learned Additional Sessions Judge was very much alive to the preposition of law and did not act in a mechanical or perfunctory manner. There was proper application of mind and the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C was rightly allowed. 4. There is no scope for interference so, the petitions are dismissed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 8.8.2011. SN