A trial court must follow the guidelines prescribed in the case of Smt. Asha and others vs. State of Karnataka before summoning additional accused in a criminal case.

Heard Sri R.S.Lagali, learned counsel for revision

petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent/State.

2.

The present petition is filed under Section 397

of Cr.P.C seeking to revise the order dated 20.04.2021

whereby the learned trial Judge without affording sufficient

opportunity for the revision petitioners directly arraigned

them as additional accused in this case.

3.

The brief facts of the case are as under :-

A complaint came to be lodged by Mareppa S/o

Sayabanna on 18.03.2017 contending that the accused

No.1-Bhimaraya and present petitioners pestered and

harassed Sayabanna in the Zilla Panchayat election held in

the year 2016 and made allegation that Sayabanna

refused to support the accused persons and as such,

Sayabanna committed suicide by consuming poison on

26.03.2016. In respect of the incident, there was a UDR

case registered and subsequently based on the complaint

4

lodged by the Mareppa the matter was reinvestigated and

a charge-sheet came to be field only against Bhimaraya by

the jurisdictional police. When the trial was in progress,

based

on

the

evidence

given

by

the

prosecution

witlessness, an application came to be filed under

Section 319 of Cr.P.C by the prosecution to arraign the

present petitioners as additional accused on record. The

learned trial Judge heard the public prosecutor and by

order dated 20.04.2021 passed by the following order :-

“The

application

by

the

State/Prosecution

U/sec.319

of

Cr.P.C

hereby allowed.

Therefore,

Bhimaraya

S/o

Yareppa,

Nagappa

S/o

Hayyalappa,

Rayappa

S/o

Hayyalappa, Sharabanna S/o Basanna, Anand

S/o Bhimaraya, Lachmanna S/o Bhimaraya,

Subhash

S/o

Yallappa,

Sharabanna

S/o

Lachmanna are made as accused No.2 to 9.

Issue NBW on accused No.2 to 9 and

process returnable by 29.05.2021.”

5

4.

The revision petitioners being aggrieved by the

said order, are before this Court in this revision.

5.

By reiterating the grounds urged in the

revision petition learned counsel Sri R.S.Lagali submits

before this court that the procedure adopted by the trial

Judge is in correct and is opposed to the principles of law

enunciated in the case of Hardeep Singh v. State of

Punjab and others reported in (2014) 2 Supreme

Court Cases (Cri) 86 and also the order passed by

Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.R.P.No.231/2016

in the case of Smt.Asha and others vs. State of

Karnataka by Electronic City Police and sought for

allowing the revision.

6.

Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader supports the impugned order.

7.

Perused the records in the light of the

arguments put-forth by the parties. Admittedly, there is a

belated complaint. Police after thorough investigation did

not find any material against the present petitioners to

6

arraign them as accused persons in the charge-sheet filed

by the police. Thereafterwords, prosecution witnesses

deposed before the Court reiterating the complaint

averments. Taking note of the said fact, Public Prosecutor

made an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.

8.

Learned

Judge

without

adverting

to

the

principles of law enunciated in Hardeep Singh’s case,

Yogendra Yadav’s case and in the case of Smt.Asha's

case

referred to supra, straightaway summoned the

accused persons by showing them as additional accused.

The said procedure is incorrect inasmuch as the revision

petitioners would not have any chance of their say as the

trial

has

already

commenced.

Therefore,

before

summoning the accused persons, guidelines prescribed in

Smt.Asha’s case could have been followed by the trial

Judge.

9.

Suffice to say that in the light of the principles

of law enunciated in Smt.Asha’s case supra following the

Yogendra Yadav’s case, the rights of the present revision

7

petitioners have been affected and as such, the impugned

order cannot be sustained. Hence, the following :

ORDER

The order impugned in the revision petition dated

20.04.2021 passed in S.C.No.228/2019 on the file of I

Addl. Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi is hereby set-aside.

However, the prosecutio