Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Rawoof Patel And Anr. vs State And Anr. on 20 November, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1996(1)ALD483, 1996(1)ALD(CRI)432, 1996(1)ALT(CRI)379, 1996(1)APLJ234, 1996CRILJ1471
Author: V. Rajagopala Reddy
Bench: V. Rajagopala Reddy
ORDER
1. The petitioners' question the order passed by the Court below in Crl.R.P. No. 466 of 1994 in Sessions Case No. 131 of 1993. The petitioners are sought to be impleaded as A-2 and A-3 in the case. Originally A-1 was the sole accused. During the course of the trial in the evidence of PW-2, one Shahjahan Patel (A-3), son of PW-1 and PW-1 were alleged to have committed the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. The learned Public Prosecutor, therefore, filed the above application requesting the Court to take cognizance of the case against the petitioners also for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge ordered the application and directed the petitioners to be impleaded and issued summons, carrying out their names in the charge-sheet.
2. It is contended by Sri Bonala Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners that prior notice is required under Section 319 Cr.P.C. before the petitioners are sought to be impleaded. He relied upon the decision of a single Judge of this Court in Criminal Petition No. 2783 of 1993 dated 29-6-1994. In Joginder Singh and Another v. State of Punjab, , the Supreme Court held :
"..... when a case is committed to the Court of Session in respect of an offence the Court of Session takes cognizance of the offence and not of the accused and once the Sessions Court is properly seized of the case as a result of the committal order against some accused the power under S. 319(1) can come into play and such Court can add any person, not an accused before it, as an accused and direct him to be tried along with the other accused for the offence which such added accused appears to have committed from the evidence recorded at the trial. Looking at the provision from this angle, there would be no question of reading S. 319(1) subject or subordinate to S. 193."
In Municipal Corporation of Del. v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi AIR 1983 SC 67, following the decision cited above (1) the Supreme Court observed :
"..... In these circumstances, therefore, if the prosecution can at any stage produce evidence which satisfies the Court that the other accused or those who have not been arrayed as accused against whom proceedings have been quashed have also committed the offence the Court can take cognizance against them and try them along with the other accused. But, we would hasten to add that this is really an extraordinary power which is conferred on the Court and should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against the other person against whom action has not been taken."
In view of the above decisions it is clear that the Sessions Judge is fully empowered to implead the petitioners as accused persons and was right in doing so since it came to his knowledge in the course of trial about the participation of the petitioners in the offence.
3. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners of a learned single Judge in Crl. Petn. No. 2783/93, as stated supra, holding that notice has to be issued before impleading a person as accused, was rendered on the special facts of that case. In that case, initially, the Police filed a charge sheet against A-1 and A-2, though the complaint was given against 3 persons, and they were committed to the Court of the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge, returned the case to the committal Court with an observation to follow the guide lines in . The learned Magistrate re-committed the case to the Sessions Court regarding A-1 and A-2 only. When the case was made over to the Asst. Sessions Judge, finding that A-3 has not figured in the charge sheet, he passed a brief order, stating that A-3 was impleaded u/S. 319 Cr.P.C., without assigning any reasons for his impleading. The said order was questioned in that case contending, among others, that the order was not a speaking order and that no notice was given. In such a background, the learned Sessions Judge held that the impleading of A-3 without giving opportunity to him was illegal. Though the decisions in Sri. Mahant Kumaranath v. State of Haryana AIR 1983 SC 67 and in Bhagawant Singh v. Commissioner of Police have been cited, they have not been considered for arriving at this conclusion. The learned Judge has relied upon Prem Singh v. State of Punjab 1993 (3) All Ind LR Cri 759 (Punj & Har). The said case does not support the view that notice has to be issued for taking action u/Section 319, Cr.P.C. It is also seen that the Section itself does not contemplate any notice. In any view, the decisions of the Supreme Court in Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab and in Sri Mahant Kumarnath v. State of Haryana AIR 1983 SC 67 as seen above, do not contemplate any notice before action is taken under u/Section 319, Cr.P.C.
4. The petitioners are sought to be shown as accused in the charge sheet and summons were directed to be served upon them. The procedure that is contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure like framing charges etc., from this stage will have to be followed. The counsel for the petitioners did not show that any prejudice was caused to them at this stage. I, therefore, hold that the order passed by the Court below does not suffer from any infirmity, for want of notice. The criminal revision case is, therefore, dismissed.
Petition dismissed.