CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1730 OF 2003 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 12, 2008 Ravinder Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana 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. I.P.S.Doabia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL) On an application moved by the prosecution, petitioner, Ravinder Singh, resident of Nehru Nagar Colony, Police Station Thana Hathras Gate, stand summoned to face prosecution for an offence under Section 307 IPC alongwith his sister, Rajesh Kumari. The allegation against Rajesh Kumari is that she had given the powdered broken pieces of glasses by mixing in saffi medicine in collusion with her brother, Ravinder Singh (present petitioner) to the complainant. This was so mentioned in the complaint. Complainant, Krishna Devi was examined as PW7 and she gave a statement, CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1730 OF 2003 :{ 2 }: revealing that on 18.3.2000, Rajesh Kumari, on the asking and under the influence and guidance of her brother, Ravinder Kumar, mixed the powder of broken pieces of glasses in medicine saffi. It is on the basis of this evidence that application was moved by the prosecution for summoning Ravinder Singh as an additional accused for being prosecuted with Rajesh Kumari for an offence under Section 307 IPC. While opposing the prayer made by the prosecution, the counsel for accused-Rajesh Kumari made reference to he investigation done in this case and pleaded that no evidence was led by the prosecution to indicate the manner of conspiracy being alleged against Ravinder Singh, petitioner. The counsel justifiably pleaded before the Court that on the basis of mere suspicion, a person could not be summoned to face prosecution as an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In support of his contention, the defence counsel relied upon various judgments, including the case of Michael Machado and another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2000 (2) RCR Criminal 75. The Court, after considering the rival contentions and taking in view the evidence found that case for summoning petitioner, Ravinder Singh, was made out. The relevant observation of the Court in this regard is that:- “It appears from the statement of PW7 Krishna Devi that the offence was committed after the conspiracy was entered into between the present accused Rajesh Kumari and Ravinder Singh who is not an accused in this case and who should be tried together with present accused CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1730 OF 2003 :{ 3 }: Rajesh Kumari.” Ratio of law laid down in Michael Machado (supra) was before the Court while deciding the application of the prosecution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically held in this case that basic requirement of invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C. is that it should appear to the Court from the evidence collected during trial or in the enquiry that some other person who is not arraigned as an accused in that case has committed an offence for which that person could be tried together with the accused already arraigned. It was further held that it is not enough that the Court entertained some doubt from the evidence. In other word, the Court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence already collected regarding two aspects firstly, that the person has committed an offence and secondly that for such an offence the other person as well can be tried alongwith already arraigned accused. Viewed in this background of the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is to be seen if the evidence that has been given can lead to reasonable satisfaction to the effect that the petitioner has committed an offence and that he can be tried alongwith the persons already arraigned as accused in this case. No doubt, what is conferred under this Section on the Court is a discretion and this discretion is to be exercised to achieve criminal justice. It was also observed in Michael Machado's case (supra) that quality of evidence before the Court should be such a type that a Court could even be hopeful that there was reasonable prospect of newly added accused being convicted. It appears that these aspects have apparently escaped notice of the Court while CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1730 OF 2003 :{ 4 }: directing summoning of the petitioner as an additional accused. Merely from the statement, which may make it appear that offence was committed, would not be the standard, which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down in Michael Machado (supra). For summoning an additional accused what is to be seen is whether the evidence which has come on record would raise a reasonable prospect of his conviction. This aspect apparently has escaped notice of the Trial Court. The petitioner has been summoned merely on the ground that it appears to the Court that conspiracy was entered into between the petitioner and Rajesh Kumari. The valid considerations of law for summoning the petitioner as an additional accused were apparently not kept in view by the Trial Court. The impugned order, as such, can not be sustained. The same is set-aside. The case will go back to the Trial Court to see if the evidence which has been produced before the Court would satisfy the test and the standard laid down in Michael Machado (supra) for summoning the petitioner as an additional accused. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits and it will be entirely in the discretion of the Court to summon the petitioner as an additional accused if it is satisfied that the standard of evidence would be such which would meet the requirement laid down in Michael Machado (supra). The prosecution would be entitled to move another application in case some subsequent evidence has come on record and the case is still in progress for summoning the petitioner as an accused. Ofcourse, it is to be done on the basis of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1730 OF 2003 :{ 5 }: The petition is disposed of with the above observations. November 12, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE