Kanta and Ors. vs State of U.P.

J. C. Gupta, J.—Heard the applicants counsel.

Through this application in revision the applicants have sought quashing of the order dated 1141996 passed by IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Etawah in Session Trial No. 282 of 1991 State of U. P. v. Manoj Kumar under Sections 304B and 498A, IPC, Police Station Ekdil district Etawah. By the impugned order the learned Sessions Judge has summoned the applicants as accused in the aforesaid trial exercising powers under Sec. 319 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel for the applicants argued before me that the learned Session Judge has committed a gross error of law in exercising powers under Section 319 (1), Cr PC as involvement of both the applicants was not found during the investigation and police did not submit chargesheet against them. It has also been argued that there is no prima facie evidence against the applicants.

A plain reading of Section 319 (1), Cr PC reveals that it is open to the trial court to summon any person, not being the accused in the Session trial as an accused when it appears to it from the evidence tendered in the court that the said person has committed any offence for which he should be tried together with the accused persons already facing trial. In the decision in Kishun Singh v. State of Bihar, 1989 ACC 167, the apex court has held that this section contemplates existence of some evidence appearing in the course of trial wherefrom the court can prima facie conclude that the person not arraigned before it is also involved in the commission of crime for which he can be tried with those already namad by the police. Even a person who has earlier been discharged will fall within the sweep of the power conferred by Section 319 (1), Cr PC. Therefore, in view of said decision, the mere fact that the present applicants were" not challenged earlier by the police cannot be a ground to set aside the order passed by the Sessions Judge under Section 319 (1), Cr PC. Before the trial court the complainant was examined as a prosecution witness. The copy of that statement has been annexed as Annexure No. 11, I have perused the same and also other material which is available on the record. It cannot be said that there is no evidence worth the name to connect the present applicants with the dowry death of the deceased. In his statement before the witness has categorically stated that the deceased was being subjected to cruelty by both the applicants and other in connection with the demand of dowry. At the stage of passing an order under Section 319 (1), Cr PC only a prima facie conclusion is required and it is not necessary for the court to record a finding that the statement made by the witness is true.

For the reasons stated above the impugned order does not call for any interference. However, having regard to the fact that applicant No. 1 is a married woman, her bail application shall be heard and disposed of by the court concerned without any delay.

The learned counsel further states that applicant No. 2 has already been allowed bail before submission of chargesheet and since he was not named in the chargesheet, he has not appeared in the court. However, the applicant now apprehends that once he has been summoned as an accused by the court under Section 319 (1), Cr PC, he may be required to obtain a fresh bail. If the applicant is on bail, as alleged, he shall not be required to obtain a fresh bail nor he shall be required to execute fresh bail bonds, if the same have not been cancelled.

With these observations, this application is disposed of finally at admission stage.