Crl.Rev.No. 1502 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No. 1502 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.8.2010 Suresh Kumar ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C” for short) challenging the order dated 19.4.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, whereby on an application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. respondent Nos. 6 and 7 were summoned to face trial as additional accused, whereas, qua respondents No. 8 to 10, the application was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Bir Mati, Suman and Santosh @ Saroj were also liable to be summoned Crl.Rev.No. 1502 of 2010 (O&M) 2 as additional accused to face the trial as they had also thrown bricks and stones on the complainant party. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves dismissal. Section 319 reads as under:- “Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence:- 1) where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. 2)Where such person is not attending the Court he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. 3) Any person attending the Court although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed. 4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1) then a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and witnesses Crl.Rev.No. 1502 of 2010 (O&M) 3 re-heard. b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.” Thus, as per the above provision, whenever during the course of trial, it appears from the evidence that any person not being accused had committed the offence for which he could be tried together with the accused facing the trial, the Court may proceed to summon such person to face the trial. In the present case, the allegations against Bir Mati, Suman and Santosh @ Saroj are that they have thrown bricks and stones on the complainant. However, during investigation the said persons were found to be innocent. No brickbats and stones were recovered from the spot. Learned trial Court, while dismissing the application qua Bir Mati, Suman and Santosh @ Saroj, has held as under:- “But as far as other persons are concerned, they were rightly found to be innocent as there presence and participation in the crime is highly doubtful and thus their names have been added in the initial statement just to implicate them for pressure tactics only. First of all no specific injury have been attributed qua those persons and then during inspection of spot the police has not Crl.Rev.No. 1502 of 2010 (O&M) 4 found any brickbats or stone lying at the spot to show that those were also used in the crime. Last, but not the least it is also admitted that they were not initially present when the assault was initiated by the main accused persons. Needless to say although the occurrence of this case took place on 15.9.2008 the statement the injured was recorded only on 23.9.2008 despite the fact that other injured and eye witnesses were fully fit to make statements and even Suresh was declared fit to make statement on 16.9.2008 and thus possibility of adding the name of those persons later on after due deliberations, cannot be ruled out. As such, there is nothing on record to show their involvement in this occurrence.” The reasons given by the trial Court, while dismissing the application qua Bir Mati, Suman and Santosh @ Saroj, are sound reasons and call for no interference. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. SABINA) JUDGE August 11, 2010 anita