MANOJ AND ANN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J. C. Gupta, J. Heard applicants' Counsel in revision and the learned A. G. A.

(2.) BY means of this revision ap plicants have challenged the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Saharanpur (Court No. 2) in Special Session Trial No. 1153/99 whereby applicants have been summoned as accused in exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr. P. C. to face their trial alongwith the accused already named by the police in the charge sheet submitted after investigation.

(3.) TO my mind the expression "who is not arraigned as an accused in that case" would mean a person who is not facing trial as an accused in that particular case and not a person who was merely named as an accused in the first information report. I may also refer to another decision of the Apex Court in Kishun Singh v. State ofbihar, 1993 ACC (167 ). In that case it was held that Section 319, Cr. P. C. contemplates existence of some evidence in the course of trial wherefrom the Court can prima facie con clude that the person not arraigned before it is also involved in the commission of the crime for which he can be tried with those already named by the police. Even a person who has earlier been discharged would fall within the sweep of the powers conferred by Section 319 of the Code. I am further fortified in my view in the decision of the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation v. R. K. Rohatagi, 1983 SC 67.