Criminal Misc. No.M-30426 of 2008 -1-
***
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.M-30426 of 2008
Date of decision : 11.11.2009
Makhan Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ....Respondent
****
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND
Present: Mr. S.K.Laddi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. B.B.S.Teji, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab
Mr. R.V.S.Chugh, Advocate for respondents No.7 to 11.
S. D. ANAND, J.
The respondents/accused No.7 to 11 are facing trial in the
Court of learned Trial Magistrate, Sardulgarh in case FIR No.140 dated
24.12.2003 under Sections 447/427 IPC. In the course of the trial, the
complainant (petitioner herein) filed a plea under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for
the summoning of Hari Ram, Bhagwan Dass alias Harbhagwan Dass,
Charan Dass, Ashok Kumar, Murari Lal (respondents no.2 to 6), as
accused.
The plea did not find favour with the learned Trial Magistrate
(who declined it vide order Annexure P-5). In revision too, the petitioner-
complainant did not get a favourable order. The order granted by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa in the relevant behalf is
Annexure P-7.
The petitioner-complainant is in revision before this Court.
The learned counsel for the complainant states that the
Criminal Misc. No.M-30426 of 2008 -2-
***
learned Trial Court, and also Revisional Court committed a grave error of
law by declining the plea under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in view of the fact that
the challan filed by the Police (prosecuting agency) did not, at all, contain a
word that respondents no.2 to 6 had been found innocent. In that view of
things, the argument proceeds, that it was incumbent upon the learned
Trial Magistrate to issue a process to secure the presence of those
respondents/accused to stand trial.
None entered appearance on behalf of respondents no.2 to 11
inspite of service for an earlier date of hearing.
It is apparent from the record that the plea under Section 319
Cr.P.C. came to be filed when the statement of petitioner Makhan Singh
had not been concluded. His cross-examination had been deferred on a
particular date and the plea under Section 319 Cr.P.C. came into filed
thereafter and before the cross-examination of that witness was concluded.
There was, thus, no substantive evidence on record on the basis whereof a
plea for summoning of the respondents/accused under Section 319
Cr.P.C. could be validly filed.
It is presently common ground that in the absence of a stay
order, the evidence of parties has already been concluded and the matter
is fixed for final arguments.
In the circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in the
petition which shall stand rejected.
Disposed of accordingly.
November 11, 2009 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE