Honble PANWAR, J.–This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1873, has been filed against the order dated 2.4.2003 passed by the Additional Session Judge (Fast Track), Balotra in Sessions Case No. 22/2002, by which the learned court below dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

(2). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and also perused by the order impugned.

(3). The fact as circumstances giving rise to this case, in succinct, are that on 28.4.2002, at about 3:30 a.m., on Binjraj Singh S/o Mangal Singh telephonically informed the police that at about 11:45 p.m. accused Pratap Singh and five-six other persons gave beatings to injured Khet Singh by Lathis and axe; he was lying unconscious and blood was oozing out from the injuries. On this telephonic information, the investigation ensued and on completion thereof, the police filed challan against the accused for the offences under Section 307, 341, 323, 324, 325 of the Indian Penal Code. During pendency of the trial, an application under Section 319, Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner for impleading Pratap Singh and Smt.Chandra Kanwar also as accused on the basis of statement of injured Khet Singh which was further supported by the statement of Binjraj Singh, Peer Singh, Sardar Singh, Hem Singh and Umed singh as well as corroborated by the medical evidence which suggested that the injured was having simple and grievous injuries on his person caused by sharp and blunt objects. The said application was opposed by the accused on the grounds that the name of Smt. Chandra Kanwar does not find place in the FIR, the witnesses have given an exaggerated version of the incident, injured Khet Singh himself has stated in the application dated 29.4.2002 (Ex.D.5) that except Tan Singh, none gave beatings to him, and the complainant side wants to linger on the matter by naming out Pratap Singh and Smt. Chandra Kanwar, also, as the accused. The learned trial Court, after considering the facts and evidence on record, dismissed the said application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Hence this revision.

(4). The State has not challenged the order impugned, which was passed by the trial Court on the application moved by the petitioner. For invoking the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the condition precedent is that it should appear to the Court from the evidence collected during trial or in the inquiry that some other person, who is not arraigned as an accused in that case, has committed an offence for which that person could be tried together with the accused already arraigned. The power conferred on the Court is discretionary as could be gathered from the words ``the Court may proceed against such person and the discretionary power so conferred on the Court should be exercised only to achieve the criminal justice.

(5). The Honble Supreme Court, in Michael Machado & Anr. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (1), held that the power conferred on the Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is only a discretion as could be discerned from the words ``the Court may proceed against such person. It further held that unless the Court is hopeful that there is reasonable prospect of the case as against the newly brought accused ending in conviction for the offence concerned, the Court should refrain from adopting such a course of action. Thus, it is clear that before Court exercises the power conferred under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the Court is required to satisfy that there that there is a reasonable prospect of the case as against the person sought to be arraigned as accused ending in conviction for the offence concerned.

(6). In Harihar Chakravarty vs. The State of West Bengal (2), the Honble Supreme Court held that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is not to be lightly exercised when it is invoked by a private complainant.

(7). It is settled law that the revisi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document