Honble YADAV, J. — The present revision petition has been filed by four petitioners viz. Hukam Singh ,Prithvi Singh, Man Mohan and Jai Kishan against the order dated 5.5.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Jodhpur regarding framing of charges under ss. 307,149,147 and 341, IPC. The police has submitted a charge-sheet against petitioners No. 1,2 and 3 and investigation was kept pending under sec. 173 (8), Cr.P.C. against petitioner No.4..

(2). The aforesaid revision came up before me for admission and disposal of ad interim order dated 3.6.94. After hearing, Mr. P.N.Mohanani, learned counsel for the petitioners, the revision filed by petitioners No. 1 to 3 was dismissed on the aforesaid date. As regard petitioner No.4 Jai Kishan, he was directed to move an application before the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur and operation of the impugned order dated 5.5.1994 about framing of charges against petitioner no.4 was ordered to be kept in abeyance for a period of two months.

(3). In pursuance of my aforesaid order, an application was moved on behalf of petitioner No.4 Jai Kishan on 4.7.1994 reiterating therein that since the investigation is pending under sub-section (8) of .Sec. 173, Cr.P.C, therefore, learned Additional Sessions Judge has no authority to frame charges against him.

(4). After hearing learned counsel for petitioner No.4, learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur has passed a detailed order indicating therein that under Sec. 193 read with Sec. 319, Cr.P.C. if the learned Sessions Judge is satisfied 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. In support of the aforesaid propositions, learned Sessions Judge has placed reliance on a case rendered by the Apex Court in Kishan Singh V. State of Bihar (1). In my considered opinion, the reasons given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 9.8.1994 are just and proper and does not require any interference of this Court in its revisional jurisdiction.

(5). A conjoint reading of Sec. 228,193 and 319 Cr.P.C. lead towards an irresistable conclusion that it is not a whim and fancy of a investigating officer to send a charge-sheet against few accused-persons involved in the same offence and deliberately avoid to submit charge-sheet against few of them although all the witnesses examined by him under Sec.161, Cr.P.C. have stated about the involvement of all the accused-persons with the same role. Under Criminal Procedure Code, the investigating officer has not been given arbitrary powers . to pick and choose to send charge-sheet against few of them and withhold the charge-sheet against few of them on some pretext or other. If it is done so by the investigating officer, the courts of law are not helpless to allow to perpetuate the travesty of justice based on whim and fancy of such investigating officer.

(6). The instant revision is filed against framing of charges by the learned Additional Sessions Judge against petitioner No.4 Jai Kishan, on the ground that the investigation is pending under sub-sec. (8) of ss. 173, Cr.P.C. and case has not been committed to the court of Sessions, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has no jurisdiction to frame the charges against him.

(7). The main thrust of argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner No.4 Shri P.N. Mohanani is that Sec. 319, Cr.P.C. being a self-contained provision, the power thereunder can be exercised strictly in the terms of the Section, which permits the exercise of power only if it appears from the evidence in the course of inquiry or trial of an offence that any person besides the accused already put up for trial, has committed any offence arising from the incident in question. Mr. Mohanani, learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted before me that the power can not be exerc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document