KELU CHARANA JENA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order dated 30.06.2006 passed by the learned C.J.M., Jagatsinghpur in G.R. Case No. 374 of 2001 exercising power under Section 319, Cr.P.C. and issuing summons to the present petitioners to stand their trial is the subject matter of challenge in this revision.

(2.) In G.R. Case No. 374 of 2001 before the C.J.M., Jagatsinghpur one Rabindra Nath Jena was facing trial for alleged commission of offences under Sections 341/323/294/506 of the I.P.C. During course of trial, the A.P.P. filed a petition under Section 319, Cr.P.C. stating that the evidence have been brought out against Kelu Ch. Jena, Dillip Kumar Jena, Ranjan Jena and Chita Jena (petitioners) for commission of offences by them and the names of the said persons also appeared in the F.I.R. and, therefore, they be summoned to face the trial. On consideration of the materials and evidence on record, the Court below came to hold that the present petitioners have committed the offences alleged in the instant case and, therefore, they are required to be tried together with the other accused person. Accordingly, it directed for issuance of summons to the present petitioners.

(3.) Mr. C.R. Lenka, learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that out of seven prosecution witnesses examined during the trial before the Court below, only two witnesses viz., P.Ws.6 and 7 implicated the present petitioners and, therefore there is no sufficient evidence before the Court below to exercise power under Section 319, Cr.P.C. and to issue summons to the petitioners. It is also his submission that the investigating agency having not charge-sheeted the present petitioners though they were named in the F.I.R., it is not open to the Court to exercise power under Section 319, Cr.P.C. His further submission is that evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7, which has been taken into consideration by the Court below to exercise its discretionary power under Section 319, Cr.P.C, being not sufficient or adequate for convicting the petitioners, the Court below should not have exercised its discretionary power.