SMT. KALAWATI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 6.5.2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ballia in S.T. No.54 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No.260 of 2016 (State Vs. Rama Shankar and others, under Sections-147, 148, 149, 452, 325, 323, 504, 304 I.P.C.). A prayer has been for setting aside the order on the ground that when the case was committed for sessions trial, charge-sheet was submitted only against 8 accused persons and therefore the application of the prosecution for summoning other accused namely (1) Smt. Kalawati, (2) Smt. Lalita, (3) Meena Verma, (4) Smt. Anita Verma, (5) Smt. Champa Verma, (6) Sanjay Verma, (7) Basant Verma, (8) Sachin Verma, (9) Ankit Verma, (10) Golu, (11) Ashok Verma, (12) Jitendra Verma, (13) Sunily Yadav, and (14) Paras Nath Singh, all residents of Kewara Milki, P.S-Bansdih, District-Ballia to face trial under Section-193 of the Crimial P.C. could not have been allowed by the Sessions Judge. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the revisionist on a judgment rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Ranjeet Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1998 (7) SCC 149 where the Supreme Court had considered the question "whether Sessions Court can add a new person to the array of accused in the case pending before it at the stage prior to collecting any evidence?"

(2.) The Supreme Court observed that while committing the case to Court of Session, the committing Court has a further duty in respect of the accused in the case under Section-209 Crimial P.C. for remanding the accused to custody once such committal has been made, subject to provisions relating to bail. The "accused" in the said Sec. refers only to accused against whom the Magistrate has already issued summons warrant. At the time of trial commencing before the Sessions Court, Section-225 of Chapter XVIII of the Code, only says that prosecution shall be conducted by the public prosecutor and Sections-226 says that when the "accused" appears or is brought before the Court in pursuance of a committance of the case under Section-209, the prosecution shall open its case by describing the charge brought against the "accused" and stating by what evidence, it proposes to prove guilt of the "accused". It is clear that during the said stage, the Court of Session can only deal with the "accused", who is referred to in Section-209 and as per Section-227 and 228, either the said "accused" has to be discharged or charges have to be framed. Thereafter, plea of the accused has to be recorded under Section- 229. The stage of evidence collection commences only thereafter. So from the stage of committal till the Sessions Court reaches the stage indicated in Section-230 of the Code, it can deal with only the "accused" referred to in Section-209 of the Code. It further observed;

(3.) Since evidence had not been collected and the stage of Section-230 had not been reached in the instant case, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants could not be added as accused by the Sessions Court.