DHANESWAR SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question that arises for consideration in this revision is whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge was justified in accepting the application filed by the Public Prosecutor Under Section 319(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') in respect of the petitioners.

(2.) THE opposite parties 2 to 20 are facing trial in the Court of the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Puri (vide S.T.No. 51 /85 of 1991) for charges Under Sections 148/302/307/324/149 of the Indian Penal Code for intentionally causing death of Purna Chandra Palei and causing hurt to Chakradhar Panda, Banchha Nidhi Naik and others. In the midst of the trial after examination of ten witnesses, the Public Prosecutor filed the application Under Section 319(1) of the Code to add six more persons including the petitioners as accused. The learned trial Judge by the impugned order dated 23.12.1992 allowed the said application in respect of the petitioners and rejected against the remaining four others.

(3.) CONTENTION No. (i) It appears that the widow of the deceased and the informant filed Crl. Revision No. 387 of 1985 in this Court praying for a direction to the petitioners and some others to stand trial in the Court of Session along with other accused persons. The aforesaid prayer was made on the ground that some witnesses in their statements recorded Under Section 164 of the Code have implicated the petitioners as culprits. A Division Bench of this Court by order dated 28.3.1990 dismissed the revision holding that the police had merely filed charge -sheet and the stage for taking action Under Section 319 of the Code had not yet reached. While dismissing the revision this Court observed : 'It is now open for the learned Sessions Judge to take such appropriate action in accordance with the law more particularly Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if the materials on record in course of trial so justify.' In my considered opinion, the aforesaid order passed in Criminal Revision No. 387 of 1 985 is not at all hit by the principle of res judicata. By the time the revision was disposed of, the trial of the sessions case had not commenced and the said revision was filed at a premature stage. On the contrary, the observation made by this Court that the Sessions Jude is free to take appropriate action Under Section 319 of the Code in course of trial strengthens the impugned order.