NARAYANAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is filed challenging order dated 29.11.2014 in CMP No. 6482 of 2014 in C.C. No. 419 of 2010 passed by the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate -I, Perambra. The said CMP was filed by the prosecution seeking addition of accused No. 4 (the revision petitioner herein) in the FIR as an accused in the calender case. Consequently, the revision petitioner herein is arrayed as accused No. 4 in the calender case and he is none other than the father of the other accused in the case. Evidently, the learned Magistrate after taking into account the evidence thus far collected found that the revision petitioner had also involvement in the offence involved for which the others are facing trial. In such circumstances, after issuing summons to the revision petitioner and complying with all statutory formalities, the learned Magistrate allowed CMP No. 6482 of 2014 filed by the prosecution and added the revision petitioner herein as accused No. 4 in the C.C. This revision petition is filed challenging the said order.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the light of the decision in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab [ : 2014 (1) KLT 336 SC]. The learned counsel gave emphasis on paragraphs 98 and 99 of the said decision. In paragraph 98, it was held that the power under section 319 is a discretionary and extra ordinary power and it is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case warrant such exercise of power. It was also found therein that only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner. In paragraph 99, it was held thus: -