R C KUMAR Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision, the question that arises for consideration is, whether a criminal Court after taking cognizance of an offence and before any evidence is let in subsequent to such taking cognizance can proceed against any person by impleading him as an accused.

(2.) The brief facts that gave rise to the question are : The de facto-complainant (Respondent No. 2) filed a report before the police making allegations against petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 and seeking their prosecution u/S.420, IPC. The police, however, filed a charge-sheet arraying petitioner No. 1 alone as an accused. The Court below took cognizance of the offence against petitioner No. 1 alone. Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor filed a petition in the Court below to implead petitioners Nos.2 and 3 as accused u/S.190, Cr. P.C., making certain allegations specifically against them. The important contents of the petition are that the FIR, and the statements of the witnesses given to the police recite clear overt acts against them and that the investigating officer did not give any reason for not charging these two petitioners. On this petition the Court made the order : "Heard. Allowed the petition." Thus, the Court below impleaded petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 after taking cognizance of the offence and before any evidence is let-in thereafter. Hence this revision.

(3.) The learned counsel, Sri Padmanabha Reddy, contended that after taking cognizance of an offence u/ S.190, Cr. P.C., the only stage available to a Criminal Court to implead any person as an accused is after letting in of some evidence, oral or documentary, during inquiry or trial as envisaged by S.319, Cr. P. C. but not at any earlier point of time. The substance of the argument is that there is no power in the Court to implead any person as an accused in the absence of any evidence let-in during inquiry or trial as contemplated by S. 319 after crossing the stage under 190.