Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Heard Mr. M.H. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. R. J.

Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The instant criminal revision petition has been preferred challenging the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 16.11.2022 passed in Petition No. 127/05 in Sessions Case No. 45/2014 pending in the Court of Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, whereby the Ld. Court below treated the petitioners as accused persons in the instant case in exercise of the power u/s 319 Cr.P.C. and thereby issued impugned summons dated 19.12.2022 to them for their appearance.

6. It is stated that no protest petition was filed by the informant due to the non-inclusion of the present petitioners in the charge sheet as accused persons.

Subsequently, the trial proceeded after the framing of charges and the depositions of two witnesses, i.e., the informant, Humera Begum Barbhuiya as PW-1, and Morion Begum Barbhuiya (sister-in-law of the informant) as PW-2 have so far been recorded by the learned Trial Court.

7. After the conclusion of the examination-in-chief of the two PWs, their cross- examination was kept reserved, and the prosecution filed an application u/s 319 CrPC for arraigning the present petitioners and some other persons as accused in the case in view of the depositions of PW-1 and PW-2. The learned court below, by way of the impugned order, allowed the aforesaid application by issuing summons to 7 persons, including the present four petitioners, i.e., (i) Anwar Hussain Chowdhury, (ii) Isfaq Hussain Chowdhury, (iii) Taj Hussain Page No.# 8/14 Choudhury, and (iv) Abdul Sukkur Mazumdar.

8. Assailing the aforesaid impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that although the present petitioners were named as accused in the FIR, no overt act was attributed to them. Subsequently, after a thorough investigation of the case and due to the absence of any credible evidence against the present petitioners, the IO submitted the charge sheet wherein the present petitioners were not sent up for trial. However, on the basis of the trial depositions of two witnesses, wherein also no specific act was attributed to the present petitioners, the learned Court below exercised powers u/s 319 CrPC to arraign the present petitioners along with three more persons as accused. The learned counsel has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs State of Punjab reported in (2014) 3 SCC 92, wherein it was held by the Constitution Bench as follows:

9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there exists no such material or evidence of the standard expected when the powers u/s 319 CrPC are sought to be invoked; therefore, the impugned order is liable to be Page No.# 10/14 interfered with.

10. Per contra, Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that the learned Magistrate, after taking into consideration the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, who have fully implicated the present petitioners, has invoked his powers u/s 319 CrPC by referring to the very same decision in Hardeep Singh (Supra), and therefore, the same cannot be faulted. Referring to Hardeep Singh (Supra), the learned Additional Public Prosecutor highlighted Para 13 thereof: