Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The challenge in Criminal Revision No. 246 of 2019, Dalvinder Singh v. State of Uttarakhand and others, its by the applicant to the application under Section 319 of Cr.PC, who has challenged the impugned order of only partially allowing the application under Section 319 of Cr.PC, the challenge in the Criminal Revision is limited to the effect of denying the summoning two of the accused persons, whom the applicant/revisionist herein also wanted to be summoned for facing the trial of Sessions Trial No. 81 of 2018.

7. When the said application came up for consideration before the trial Court, the trial court by the order impugned dated 5th April 2019, had partly allowed the application of Davinder Singh under Section 319 of Cr.PC. As a consequence of the partial allowing of the application, the accused named in the application under Section 319 of Cr.PC viz Sukhvinder Singh @ Laddoo; Mohan Singh son of Surjan Singh; Nazar Singh son of Nishabar Singh; all residents of Eithal, Police Station Pathri, District Haridwar were summoned excluding two of the accused persons named in the application under Section 319 of CrPC i.e. Sher Singh son of Shukbir Singh and Kala Singh son of Iqbal.

9. This Court upon hearing the counsel for the two revisions is of the view that if the impugned order is scrutinized from the viewpoint which is being argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist of Revision No. 196 of 2019, is that the summoning order by invoking the provisions contained under Section 319 of CrPC, it ought to have disclosed, as to the persons who had been sought to be summoned to be tried for an offence, as to under which and for which offences he has been sought to be summoned to be tried. He further argued, though refuted by the learned AGA, as well as by the learned counsel for the applicant to the application under Section 319 of Cr.PC, that the application under Section 319 CrPC, could not be attracted to summon the probable accused person in relation to those offences for which the cognizance has not been taken by the trial court, for conducting the trial and hence he submits that the application under Section 319 CrPC when it is being considered its scope of summoning of accused cannot be widened by introducing those Sections for which the trial was not pending or for which the cognizance was not taken.

13. They submit that the operative portion of the order once it makes reference to application paper No. 37B, and the summoning has been done in relation to the Sessions Trial No. 81 of 2018, State v. Sarabjit Singh, the presumption which has to be logically drawn and has been sought to be drawn too is that as soon as the reference of an application under Section 319 of CrPC is made in operative portion of impugned order, it would be deemed and presumed that summoning has been made in relation to all the offences which has been mentioned in the application under Section 319 CrPC itself. This argument of the learned counsel for the applicant to the application under Section 319 CrPC, and the learned AGA for the State is not accepted by this Court for the reason being that if a composite reading of the impugned order is taken into consideration, the preceding paragraph of the impugned order, refers that the summoning of the accused persons as sought to by the application under Section 319 of Cr.PC was in relation to the Sessions Trial No. 81 of 2018, State v. Sarabjit Singh, i.e. for the offences under Sections 147, 504 & 506 only, and as such, I am of the view that such summoning order if at all it could be read, it could be only for summoning the accused persons thus named in the operative order, it would be confined to the offences for which the cognizance has already been taken by the trial Court, and for which the trial is pending consideration and no other offence, which didn't even proved to be established, by the investigating officer in the chargesheet.