Judgment

VENKATARAMIAH, J. :- The question for consideration in this case is whether a person against whom a complaint is filed along with some other person and who after an enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974) (hereinafter referred to as the Code) is not proceeded against by the court can be summoned at a later stage under Section 3 19 of the Code to stand trial for the very same or connected offence or offences along with the other person against whom process had been issued earlier by the court.

2. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order dated, May 2, 1979 of the High Court of Patna in Criminal Misc. No. 405 of 1979.

3. A complaint was preferred by the second respondent herein before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, to take action against the appellant and one Banktesh Prasad alleging that Banktesh Prasad had committed certain acts which amounted to offences punishable under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C. and that the appellant had abetted the offence under Section 323 and had also committed an offence punishable under Section 506 I.P.C. Banktesh Prasad was the Security Officer of the National Institute of Foundry and Forge Technology, Ranchi. The appellant was its Director. The complainant was the General Secretary of the association of the employees of the Institute. The alleged incident is stated to have taken place as a consequence of a certain labour dispute. After recording the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the evidence of six witnesses, the Chief Judicial Magistrate felt that there was no prima facie case made out for proceeding against the appellant and accordingly he declined to issue process against him. He, however, took cognizance of the case against Banktesh Prasad and issued process against him for his appearance on September 15, 1976. The case was transferred to the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class Ranchi for disposal. The complainant filed a revision petition before the Judicial Commissioner Ranchi, against the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dropping the proceedings against the appellant. That petition was dismissed by the Judicial Commissioner on November 24, 1976.

4. The proceedings against Banktesh Prasad were continued before the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ranchi, as directed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. In the course of those proceedings, it appears that the prosecution witnesses deposed on oath that the appellant had ordered Banktesh Prasad to hit the complainant and that the appellant had also taken out his revolver and threatened to shoot and kill the complainants party by pointing the revolver towards them. After such evidence was recorded the complainant made an application under Section 319 of the Code to summon the appellant to stand trial along with Banktesh Prasad. That application was allowed by the Magistrate on April 2, 1979 holding that there was sufficient evidence in the case suggesting that the appellant had committed offences punishable under Sections 323/109 and 506, I.P.C. and that the appellant should be summoned to face the trial along with the other accused. The appellant questioned the order of the Magistrate before the Patna High Court at Ranchi in a revision petition. That petition was dismissed. This appeal by special leave is filed against the order of the High Court on the revision petition.

5. Section 319 of the Code reads;

"319. 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 pu