Back
1982 Supreme(Del) 172
High Court Of Delhi
MOHAN WAHI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 12 of 1982
Decided On : 05/28/1982
ARJUN BHANDARI, B.B.Singh, D.R.Sethi, Y.S.Chitale, Z.A.KHALIDI
The court held that Section 319 of the CrPC empowers the court to summon any person other than the accused before it, as an accused and direct him to be tried alongwith the other accused for the offence which such added accused appears to have committed from the evidence recorded at the trial.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 319 - SUMMONING ADDITIONAL ACCUSED - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY - EVIDENCE REQUIRED - SUFFICIENCY - INTERPRETATION - COURT'S DISCRETION - ACCUSED'S RIGHT TO DEMAND TRIAL OF ACCOMPLICE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, S. M. Wahi, was summoned as an accused person along with Rajinder Singh, the principal accused, in a case involving the removal and disposal of important documents from the Ministry of Steel. The petitioner challenged the summoning order, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to warrant his conviction and that the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in invoking Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the evidence on record, including the statement of the Approver, Hukam Chand, and other witnesses, was sufficient to indicate prima facie the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the offence. The court also held that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not err in exercising his discretion under Section 319 of the CrPC to summon the petitioner as an accused person.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence on record was sufficient to warrant the summoning of the petitioner as an accused person under Section 319 of the CrPC? 2. Whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in exercising his discretion under Section 319 of the CrPC?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the evidence on record, including the statement of the Approver and other witnesses, was sufficient to indicate prima facie the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the offence. The court noted that Section 319 of the CrPC requires only that there be some legal evidence on the record showing involvement of any person other than the accused before the Court in the commission of an offence. The court held that the evidence in this case met this requirement. 2. The court held that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not err in exercising his discretion under Section 319 of the CrPC to summon the petitioner as an accused person. The court noted that the petitioner had not been cited as a witness by the prosecution and that there was no evidence to suggest that the application was actuated by an ulterior object.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's petition.
( 1 ) THE facts giving rise to this revision petition may be succinctly stated as under :-
( 2 ) ON 16th August, 1976, Shri S. D. Prasad, the then Joint Secretary, Ministry of Steel, Govt. of India,. handed over an important cabinet draft note for the selection and appointment of Mining Associate and Engineer contractor for the Kudremukh Iron Ore Project to Shri P. N. Chopra, Desk Officer for check up and making consequential changes and corrections. Shri Chopra placed the said document on his table. Rajinder Singh, accused in the instant case who was then working as Senior Private Asistant to Shri S. N. Acharaya, Joint Secretary, Department of Steel, went to the room of Shri Chopra and had a cup of coffee. He then saw the said draft note. On return to his own room Shri Rajinder Singh asked Shri Hukam Ghand, who was then working as Jamadar (Sweeper) under Shri S. N. Acharaya to remove the said draft note from the table of Shri P. N. Chopra. Accordingly at about 2. 00 P. M. when Shri P. N. Chopra was not present there, Hukam Ghand stealthily removed the said draft note and gave it to Shri Rajinder Singh. The latter in turn passed on the same to the contractor through S/shri S. N. Wahi (the present petitioner), Surinder Wahi and their driver Jagdish Ghand.
( 3 ) ON return to his room after about 10/15 minutes, Shri P. N. Ghopra did not find the said draft note on his table. So he made a thorough search and inquiry about the same. He even talked to his Joint Secretary. Eventually failing to locate the missing papers he lodged a report with the Central Bureau of Investigation cn21st August, 1976, slating that the said draft note had been stealthily removed from his office by some interested person with some ulterior motive and dishonest intention. A case under Section 380/414, Indian Penal Code, being R. C. No. 56/76, was registered on its basis. On 11th March, 1977, the Central Bureau of Investigation filed a charge-sheet against Shri Rajinder Singh for his prosecution under Section 380/414 Indian Penal Code. It transpired during the course of investigation that since about March, 1976, Shri Rajinder Singh, accused, had been getting important documents of the Kudremukh Project removed through Hukam Chand from the room of Shri S. D. Prasad and he used to pass on these original documents to the contractor through S/shri S. M. Wahi, Surinder Wahi and their driver Jagdish Ghand. However, those documents used to be returned to Shri Rajinder Singh after one or two days and surreptitiously replaced in the room of Shri S. D. Prasad. Shri Rajinder Singh used to get Rs. 500. 00 each time he passed on documents to Shri S. M. Wahi or his associates. Out of the said money, Rajinder Singh used to give amounts ranging between Rs. 75. 00 to Rs, 100. 00 to Hukam Ghand. However, Rajinder Singh could not get an opportunity to replace the aforesaid draft note because of the hue and cry raised by Shri P. N. Chopra soon after its dis-appearance from bistable. So, he preferred TO keep quiet. However, on 16th September, 1976, Shri Rajinder Singh went to the house of Shri P. N. Chopra and made a clean breast of the whole thing. Similarly on 24th September, 1976, Hukam Ghand made a confessional statement before a Metropolitan Magistrate which was duly recorded under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code): Subsequently, Hukan Chand was granted pardon under Section 306 of the Gode on 21st February, 1977.
( 4 ) THE Approver Hukam Chand was examined as Public Witness 1 on 20th March, 1980 and he unfolded the prosecution narrative. On 17th November 1980, Rajinder Singh, accused, made an application under Section 319 of the Gode for prosecuting S. M. Wahi, Surinder Wahi and their driver Jagdish Prasad also alongwith him because the allegations against them were that they had abetted him i. e. Rajinder Singh, for the removal and disposal of the aforesaid documents. In the reply filed by the State (C. B. I.), they pointed out that t
