Narain Singh vs State of Punjab

N.C. Khichi, J.

A case under sections 304B, 406 and 498A IPC vide FIR No. 70 dated 1.7.1998 was registered at Police Station B Division Amritsar against the petitioners and their coaccused Mukhtiar Singh and Surinder Kaur on the basis of the statement of Avtar Singh, brother of Rajwant Kaur deceased. Mukhtiar Singh is the husband whereas Surinder Kaur is the motherinlaw of the deceased.

During investigation Narain Singh & Smt. Babal now petitioners herein were found innocent and as such they were shown in Column No. 2 of the final report under section under Section 173 Cr.P.C. whereas case against Mukhtiar Singh and Smt. Surinder Kaur was committed to the court of Sessions. The case was then entrusted to the court of Shri Inderjit Singh. Addl. Sessions Judge, Amritsar for trial. Before the framing of the charge an application under section 193 Cr.P.C. was moved by Addl. Public Prosecutor for summoning the petitioners named in the FIR for their trial alongwith Mukkhtiar Singh and Surinder Kaur.

After hearing the APP for the State and on perusal of the records i.e. FIR and statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. during investigation, the learned trial Court found that there is sufficient material on record showing the involvement of the petitioners namely Narain Singh and Smt. Babal to be tried as accused alongwith others named above in this case. Thus, vide orders dated 19.4.1999 the petitioners were ordered to be summoned in this case so as to face trial alongwith their coaccused. The petitioners have challenged the validity of this order.

Counsel for the parties have been heard.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the learned trial court had no jurisdiction to summon the petitioners without recording some evidence in the case after framing of the charge, and as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

After giving due consideration to this submission I find merit therein. Learned trial court while passing the impugned order relied upon two judgments of this Court i.e. 1994(1) RCR 342 Nanak Chand v. State of Haryana and 1998(1) RCR 721, Balbir Singh Brar v. State of Punjab and 1993(1) Recent Criminal Reports 647 (Supreme Court), Kishun Singh and others v. State of Bihar.

The learned trial court did not take into consideration the judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in JT 1996(5) SC 437, Raj Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar and JT 1998(6) SC 512 : 1998(4) RCR(Crl.) 552, Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab.

In Raj Kishore Prasad''s case (supra) it was held that "evidence" envisaged in Section 319 of the Code is the evidence tendered during trial of the case if the offence is triable by a Court of Sessions. The material placed before the committal court cannot be treated as evidence collected during inquiry or trial."

In Ranjit Singh''s case (supra) the case of Kushan Singh was distinguished and after examining the scope and ambit of Sections 319, 193 and 209 Cr.P.C. it was held that in pursuance of a commitment of the case under section 209 Cr.P.C. the court of Sessions can deal only with the accused who is referred to in Section 209 Cr.P.C. It was further held that from the stage of committal till the Sessions Court reaches the stage indicated in Section 230 of the Code the Court can deal with only the accused referred to in Section 209 of the Code. There is no intermediary stage till then for the Sessions Court to add any other person to the array of the accused.

It was further held in para No. 20 of the said judgment by Hon''ble Supreme Court :

"Thus, once the Session Court takes cognizance of the offence pursuant to the committal order the only other stage when the Court is empowered to add any other person to the array of the accused is after reaching evidence collection when powers under section 319 Cr.P.C. of the Code can be invoked. We are unable to find any other power for the Session Court to permit addition of new person or persons to the array of the accused. Of course it is not necessary for the court to wait until the entire evidence is collected for exercising the said powers."

So the judgments referred to by the learned trial court in support of its order have already been overruled in Ranjit''s case (supra).

In the instant case the learned Addl. Sessions Judge summoned the petitioners for their trial alongwith coaccused without recording some evidence before framing of the charge. The approach of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is illegal. Consequently, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

In view of what has been stated above, this petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 19.4.1999 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Amritsar is set aside.