A Court of Session has the power to summon an additional accused to stand trial without itself recording evidence, based on the provisions of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. Whether the Court of Session without itself recording evidence, can summon a person to stand trial as an accused (along with others committed to it by a Magistrate) on the basis of documents in the final report of the Investigating Officer under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is the spinal question in this set of four cases refer-red for decision by the Division Bench. Equally at issue is some discordance of Single Bench views within this Court in Amar Singh V/s. State of Punjab (Cri. M. No.4220 of 1977 decided on the 18th of November, 1977) and Randhir Singh V/s. Kala Singh, (1979) 81 Punj LR 286 on the one hand and Balwinder Singh V/s. State of Punjab, (1981) 83 Punj LR 685 on the other.

2. As is apparent the issue afore-said is pristinely legal and the facts would, consequently pale into relative insignificance. Therefore a skeletal background thereat from Criminal Mis-cellaneous No.3837 of 1982 (1981?) Lal Chand V/s. State of Haryana would amply suffice. The incident took place on the 27th of August, 1980 at about 8.30 A.M. in the office of the Truck Union, Sonepat. Cross-cases were registered against the parties by the police on the 27th and 30th of August, 1980. One of the victims of the crime Ram Kumar, however, succumbed to his injuries later on the 2nd of September, 1980 and consequently the case against the accused persons was converted to one under Section 302, Indian penal Code, along with ancillary offences. After investigation, six accused persons, namely, Satinder Kumar, Sube Singh, Azad Singh, Rajbir, Hukam Chand and Hawa Singh were challaned by the police for the said offence. However, the investigation allegedly found Lal Chand, the President of the Truck Union to be innocent on the ground that at the time of the occurrence he was in the police station in connection with an application of one Chiranji Lal. The Magistrate, having jurisdiction, con-sequently, committed the aforesaid six accused persons for trial to the Court of Session, excluding Lal Chand on the basis of the findings of the Investigating Agency. Before the Court of Session, Bharat Singh complainant made an ap-plication for summoning Lal Chand also as an accused person to stand his trial in the case along with other co-accused. In his detailed order dated the 6th August, 1981, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, inter alia sum-moned Lal Chand as an accused in the case to be put in the dock along with the other co-accused. He held that since all the injured eye-witnesses had categorically made statements before the police involving Lal Chand for the commission of the alleged offence a prima facie case against him was clearly made out and a plea of alibi by him could not conclusively absolve him of the charge. The learned Judge opined that even though strictly speaking the provisions of Section 319 were not at-tracted yet he had the power to sum-mon and frame a charge against Lal Chand petitioner as well under Sec-tions 227 and 228 of the Criminal P.C. Basic reliance was placed on Randhir Singhs case. (1979) 81 Punj LR 286 (supra).

3. This case originally was heard by my learned brother S.S. Kang, J. Be-fore him the correctness of the view in Amar Singhs case and Randhir Singhs case (supra) was seriously assailed on the basis of subsequent judgments tak-ing divergent views. Noticing the con-flict of judicial opinion on the point, my learned brother Kang, J., by his lucid and detailed referring order directed the matter to be place before a larger Bench for an authoritative decision. The other three connected cases have been refer-red for identical reasons.

4. Since the basic stand of the re-spondent-State is on Sections 227 and 228 of the Criminal P.C., 1973 (herein-after called the Code) pertaining to the power of the Court of Session, to dis-charge an accused or frame a charge against him, it is apt to quote those pro-visions at the very outset. However, as the argument turns considerabl