MUTHUKUMAR AND ORS. Vs. M. PALANISAMY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision is filed by the proposed parties to be included as accused in C.C. No. 288 of 2002.

(2.) ACCORDING to the revision petitioners neither in the First Information Report nor in the 161 Statement nor in the charge sheet, the name of the petitioners have been included or stated as accused and even thereafter, during the time of trial also, the witnesses had not whisper about the name of the petitioners in their evidence or the alleged overt act against the petitioners. According to the revision petitioners, they have got a registered sale deed dated 26.03.1998 in respect of the disputed property, through one Ramamoorthy, Power Agent of one Sengota Chettiar (A1) and the Power of Attorney has also been executed on the same day.

(3.) IT is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said sale is not mentioned in the encumbrance certificate and without knowing the encumbrance and litigations, the petitioners had purchased the said property. Further this application is filed by the accused (A2) after the evidence is over. In this case, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on : 2014 (3) SCC 92 (Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and others) for the proposition that the power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power which is required to be exercised sparingly and if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against persons against whom action has not been taken, the power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised. He also contended that the prosecution has not made out any case at all. Aggrieved against the order passed by the court below in the petition filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C., and that too on the instigation of the second accused, the revision is filed by the revision petitioners.