LEKSHMIKUTTY AMMA Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision petitioner is the additional third accused in CC No. 779/2007 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta. She has been arraigned in the above CC as 3rd accused by virtue of the impugned order under challenge. The said arraignment was made on an application filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor under Section 319 of the CrPC. Being aggrieved by the impleadment, this revision petition is filed on various grounds.

(2.) The counsel for the Revision petitioner contends that the order under challenge is illegal and unsustainable under law. The lower Court has not formed an opinion; but without forming an opinion, the Revision petitioner has been implicated as third accused. So also, there must be some fresh evidence. In the instant case, without any fresh evidence the Revision petitioner has been implicated. The counsel further submits that the power under Section 319 cannot be exercised mechanically and it should have been exercised with due care and caution. The Public Prosecutor has no right to file such an application.

(3.) Per contra, the counsel appearing for the third respondent submits that the application filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor was in order as he has locus standi to file such a petition. The learned counsel points out that though the allegations were raised against the Revision petitioner in the FI Statement given to the police, the police omitted her in the charge-sheet. But when she was examined in Court, she again gave statements implicating the involvement of the Revision petitioner in the alleged offence. Therefore, at any point, the impugned order is justifiable.