Crl.Rev.No.2200 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Rev.No.2200 of 2008 Date of Decision: 20.2.2009 Gulzari Lal .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and another ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Jatinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab. Ms. G.K. Mann, Advocate for respondent no.3. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioner, impugns an order dated 11.9.2008, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar, dismissing an application, filed under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for summoning Raj Rani- respondent no.3, as an accused. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of the impugned order does not disclose any error of jurisdiction, as would require interference with the discretion exercised by the trial Court. It would be necessary to mention here that a similar petition was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 15.2.2008, as the evidence of Gulzari Lal PW-6 and Ved Parkash PW-7 was held to be insufficient to arraign respondent no.3 as an accused. Thereafter upon conclusion of Hazari Lal PW-8's deposition, the prosecution filed another application under Section 319 of the Code of Crl.Rev.No.2200 of 2008 2 Criminal Procedure, to summon Raj Rani as an accused. The learned Sessions Judge, after a considered appraisal of the evidence on record has correctly held that there is no evidence on record that would require Raj Rani to be arraigned as an accused and, therefore, dismissed the application. It would also require mention that during the pendency of the present petition, the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide judgement dated 15.1.2009 has acquitted the accused, who was facing trial. Though, this fact alone would not suffice to dismiss the revision, as a separate trial can be conducted against an accused, summoned under Section 319 of the Code, but in view of the facts referred to herein above, particularly the absence of any evidence to suggest that Raj Rani, committed any offence, for which she may be arraigned together with the already arraigned accused, the impugned order does not require interference and this petition is accordingly dismissed. 20.2.2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE