PANDURANG AND OTHERS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition coming on for admission, is heard at length of by this order.

(2.) The present petition is preferred against an order passed under Sec. 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Crimial P.C. ' for brevity). The prosecution had filed the application under Sec. 319 of Crimial P.C. with a prayer to summon accused 1-Panduranga, accused 2-Sunil, accused 3-Samir, accused 4-Subhash and accused 5-Sharanbassu, on the ground that the case was registered against six persons and the charge-sheet was filed only against one person namely, Maharaya, with the above said five accused having been dropped from the proceedings.

(3.) Therefore, the learned Counsel would submit that the mere fact that there is some evidence which would be sufficient to frame a charge, according to the Court below, is intenable, since it is settled law that the evidence appearing on record must be sufficient to convict the accused and not merely to frame a charge or to take cognizance. This is the consistent view expressed by the Supreme Court and therefore, the observation of the Court below that the case against the accused could be trashed out at a de novo trial, would indicate that the endeavour is to embark on a wild goose chase, on matters which are yet to come on record and therefore, he would submit that the order impugned is clearly against the law of the land. Even on merits, he would point out that it is on record that the complainant has made divergent statements in alleging that these petitioners were also involved. Thereafter has resiled, to restrict his allegation only against the accused who is on trial. It is therefore on the initiative of the prosecution which has treated the complainant as a hostile witness, it is sought to be made out that these accused have been named by the complainant and it is on that footing that it was pleaded that there is sufficient material to summon the accused. This, it is emphasised, was not sufficient material for the Court to have invoked the extraordinary power under Sec. 319 of Cr. P.C. and seeks that the petition be allowed.