NIRANJAN LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. K. Phaujdar, J. In this applica tion under Section 482, Cr. P. C. the ap plicant has challenged an order dated 22-12-1993 passed by the IVth Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh, in Case No. 1984 of 1991, State v. Dharam Pal, under Sections 323, 324, IPC, P. S. Madrak, District Aligarh. The aforesaid order was chal lenged in a criminal revision No. 69 of 1994 before the Sessions Court and the IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge at Aligarh had dismissed the revision application by his order dated 23-9-1996.

(2.) IT appears from the order im pugned that initially the case was taken up against Dharam Pal and others and certain witnesses were examined at the trial stage. In their statements, the complicity of the present applicants in the alleged offence had transpired and the prosecution made a prayer for an action under Section 319, Cr. P. C. against the present applicants. The learned trial court considered the prayer and directed issuance of summons on the present applicants by his order dated 22-12-1993.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the State relied on the decision of the Supreme Court as reported in 1993 Crl. L. J. at 1077, Kisun Singh and others v. State of Bihar. It was a case where the Session Court had directed issuance of summonses to such accused persons who were not charge-sheeted and were not committed to it. It was a case where no evidence was led before the court and really the trial had not commenced. It was observed that as no evidence was led the power of summoning under Section 319, Cr. P. C. was not at tracted. But the Supreme Court was of the view that the Sessions Court had every jurisdiction to summon an additional ac cused by invoking its powers under Sec tion 193, Cr. P. C. as under the provisions of the Cr. P. C. of 1973 a case is committed to the Court of Sessions and not a particular accused and under Section 193 the Ses sions Court is empowered to take cog nizance upon commitment. THE order im pugned here has been recorded by a Magistrate for whose Section 193 is not at all applicable and some statement was made before him during trial and the ques tion for determination is whether the statements amounted to evidence in the sense the term has been used in Section 319, Cr. P. C.