IMPORTANT POINT
It cannot be said that application u/s 319 only on the basis of examination-in-chief is not maintainable.

Headnote:(a) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 319 – Whole case against all the accused should be tried and disposed of not only expeditiously but also simultaneously – Cognizance against the newly added accused should be taken in the same case and in the same manner as against the original accused – The power is incidental and ancillary to the main power to take cognizance as part of normal process in the administration of criminal justice. (Para 28)
        (1979)1 SCC 345; (1983) 1 SCC 1; (2002)5 SCC 738; (2000)3 SCC 262; (2004) 7 SCC 792; (2007)4 SCC 773: (2007) 6 SCR 68; (2007)8 SCC 224; JT 2008 (9) SC 504 – Relied upon.
        (b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 319 – Term ‘evidence’ in section 319(1) does not mean evidence which is tested by cross examination – An application under Section 319 of the Code is maintainable even without completion of cross-examination of a witness. (Para 55)
        (2001) 6 SCC 248; (2000) 2 SCC 396 – Relied upon.
        (2007) 4 SCR 1023 – Distinguished.
        (c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 319 – At the pre-process stage the accused has no locus standi and is not entitled to be heard on the question whether the process should be issued against him or not – Therefore it cannot be said that application u/s 319 only on the basis of examination-in-chief is not maintainable. (Para 59)
        (1976) 3 SCC 736 – Relied upon.
        (d) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 319 – Grant or rejection of application under Section 319 would generally not alter the position of the named accused persons who are already before the court – Therefore, it cannot be held that unless the cross-examination of a witness by accused who were already on record is over and complete, no power under Section 319 of the Code can be exercised. (Para 59)
        (e) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 319 – The section provides that such added accused would be placed in the same position as other accused and will get all rights an accused can get under the Code – Proceedings against the added accused shall be commenced afresh and witnesses will be reheard – Therefore question of prejudice does not arise at all. (Para 60)
        (f) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 173 – Investigating Officer is not expected to record findings of fact nor to give clean chit by exercising power of a Court or judicial authority. (Paras 70 and 72)
        (g) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 319 – In view of conflicting views by two concurrent Benches the question whether power u/s 319 can be exercised before completion of cross-examination referred to larger Bench. (Paras 70 and 80)
       Facts of the case :
        1. In an auction for leasing the land was held by the Gram Panchayat of village Indrapuri, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala on April 21, 2004 for cultivation on yearly basis (Eksali) for the year 2004-05 the bid of the appellant was accepted and lease was granted in his favour. The appellant was thus in possession of the land.
        2. On June 24, 2004, the appellant was ploughing the land. The accused persons went there with deadly weapons and caused injuries to the appellant as well as other prosecution witnesses.
        3. On an application, police investigated the involvement of the named accused and on the basis of the report submitted by Superintendent of Police that they were discharged.
        4. An application was, therefore, made by the Addl. Public Prosecutor under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to include respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as accused and to summon them for trial.
        5. The Trial Court rejected the application observing that he did not find sufficient grounds to proceed against Vijay Preet Singh and Jagtar Singh.
        6. Criminal Revision thereagainst was dismissed the High Court.
        7. In the other appeal the name of one accused was not included in the FIR. An application was, therefore, made to the trial Court by the Addl. Public Prosecutor under Section 319 of the Code to include the name of Kashmir Singh as an accused and to issue summons to him.
        8. The prayer was, however, rejected which was challenged by the appellant herein by filing Criminal Revision but it was also dismissed by the High Court.
       Finding of the Court :
        Cognizance against the newly added accused should be taken in the same case and in the same manner as against the original accused.
        Investigating Officer is not expected to record findings of fact nor to give clean chit by exercising power of a Court or judicial authority.
       Result : Application u/s 319 allowed.

JUDGMENT

C.K. Thakker, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. Both the parties in the High Court have filed present appeals against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, dated October 23, 2006 in Criminal Revision Nos. 773 of 2006 and 1648 of 2006.

3. To appreciate the contentions raised by the parties, it would be appropriate to narrate few facts.

4. In the appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 166 of 2007, the case of the prosecution is that an auction for leasing the land was held by the Gram Panchayat of village Indrapuri, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala on April 21, 2004 for cultivation on yearly basis (Eksali) for the year 2004-05. The bid of the appellant was accepted and lease was granted in his favour. The appellant was thus in possession of the land.

5. According to the prosecution, on June 24, 2004, the appellant was ploughing the land. The accused persons went there with deadly weapons and caused injuries to the appellant as well as other prosecution witnesses. First Information Report (FIR) was lodged against the accused at Police Station Sadar, Samana for commission of offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 336 and 427 read with Sections 120B, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) as also for offences punishable under Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959. Accused were arrested. Vijay Preet Singh (respondent No. 2) was one of them.

6. It is the allegation of the appellant that Vijay Preet Singh-respondent No.2 herein is the son of Sukhvinder Singh, Chairman of Panchayat Samiti, Samana. The said Sukhvinder Singh interfered with the investigation. With a view to get the name of his son Vijay Preet Singh deleted by exercising influence on Police Authorities, he made an application on June 26, 2004, i.e. within two days of the incident, lodging of FIR and arrest of Vijay Preet Singh to Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Patiala, inter alia, stating therein that Vijay Preet Singh was resident of village Meayalkhurd, was studying in 10+2 class and at the time of occurrence he was not there but was at his residence and was falsely implicated in the case. He, therefore, asked the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) to make an inquiry either himself or through some senior officer so that justice be done to Vijay Preet Singh.

7. It also appears that Jagtar Singh-respondent No.3 herein also made a similar application on July 03, 2004 to Deputy Inspector General (DIG), Patiala asserting that in an incident dated June 24, 2004, his name was not mentioned in the FIR, but he had been falsely involved and he was likely to be arrested. His name was given by some persons due to grudge by the complainant side. There was a cross-case also. He, therefore, prayed that an inquiry may be conducted through an independent officer and the applicant may not be arrested till he is proved guilty.

8. It appears that an inquiry was conducted by police and a report was submitted by Superintendent of Police (D), Patiala to SSP, Patiala on July 12, 2004 wherein it was stated that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. Vijay Preet Singh and Jagtar Singh had not committed any offence and they were falsely implicated. A recommendation was, therefore, made not to initiate proceedings against both of them. Both the persons were, therefore, discharged.

9. During the course of trial, however, depositions of witnesses were recorded. PW2 Hardeep Singh, in his deposition, stated that Vijay Preet Singh as also Jagtar Singh, respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were present at the time of incident with weapons. So far as respondent No.2-Vijay Preet Singh is concerned, his name was mentioned in the FIR. He participated in the incident and was having a weapon with him (gandasi). He was also arrested by the police from the place of offence. Similarly, respondent No.3-Jagtar Singh was present with soti. He also participated in the incident by raising lalkaras. In furtherance of common object, all the accused assaul

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2008 Supreme(SC) 1636

IMPORTANT POINT It cannot be said that application u/s 319 only on the basis of examination-in-chief is not maintainable.

Cases Referred (12)

IMPORTANT POINT
It cannot be said that application u/s 319 only on the basis of examination-in-chief is not maintainable.