Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: s.319 in M.Abdul Rahim vs State Of Kerala on 24 September, 2010Matching Fragments
3. The revision petitioner herein preferred the above revision petition and filed the same before this court on 7.7.2010, in which petition the prayer is to allow the revision petition setting aside the judgment dated 27.2.2010 of the trial court to the extent in not invoking S.319 of Cr.P.C. and implicating Hussain and Sherif as accused for the offence punishable u/s.307 of IPC.
4. Mr.Pirappancode V.S.Sudheer, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner vehemently argued that, especially on the strength of two decisions of the apex Court reported in Shashi Kant Singh Vs. Tarkeshwar Singh & anr. [2002(5) SCC 738] and in Kailash Vs. State of Rajasthan [AIR 2008 SC 1564] and another decision of this court reported in Narayanan Nambiar Vs. State of Kerala [1987(1) KLT 871], that there are sufficient materials and evidence to proceed against the said Hussain and Sherif u/s.319 of Cr.P.C. and even if the trial is over, in the light of the above decisions, this court can order denova trial after implicating the above persons, after invoking s.319 of Cr.P.C.
5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, on a reading of S.319 would show that the powers given to the courts under S.319 can be invoked only during the "trial" or "inquiry" and in the present case that stages were already over and at this highly belated stage, no such petition can be entertained.
6. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both the counsels for the revision petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and also gone through the judgments impugned. I have also perused the decisions cited by the learned counsel.
10. Going by S.319 of Cr.P.C. it can be seen that, it is a special and specific provision which gave authority to the trial court to implicate a person as an accused even though he has not named as accused in the trial. If it is brought on record during the trial or inquiry that, any other person have any role in the commission of the offence, for which the trial being held, certainly that court can implicate a person against whom evidence was recorded, even if that person is not facing the trial. Ofcourse that powers can be exercised at any stage before the conclusion of the trial. But while exercising that jurisdiction the trial court has to adopt the procedure contemplated in sub- section 4 of S.319 of Cr.P.C. As the trial court has already concluded the trial, without invoking S.319, it can be safely presumed that the trial court is of the opinion that, no other person has involved in the commission of the offence. As the revision petitioner has failed to point out any evidence, warranting the invocation of S.319, the above presumption is reinforced.
11. It is also relevant to note that, the revision petitioner herein was examined as PW10 on 12.8.2010. But till the filing of the revision petition, no step was taken by him to implicate any other person in the above case or nothing was brought to the notice of the trial Judge, so as to provide him to invoke S.319 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, prayer for implicating the above two persons, after the trial of the case, at this belated stage has to be rejected.
12. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner on the strength of the decision of the apex Court, in Shashi Kant Singh Vs. Tarkeshwar Singh & anr. [2002(5) SCC 738] submitted that, even after the trial, while invoking appellate jurisdiction or revisional jurisdiction, the superior court can invoke S.319 of Cr.P.C. in the present case. But I am unable to endorse the above submission, on the basis of the above decisions, since the facts and circumstances involved in the present case are entirely different from that of the reported decisions cited supra. In the above reported cases, the trial Judge himself issued summons after invoking s.319 of Cr.P.C. but the same was not materialised because of the further litigation and in the meanwhile the trial was concluded. But in the present case nothing was brought to the notice of the trial court Judge and no summons was issued. Therefore the above decisions has no application in the present case.