NARESH Vs. RAMPAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An application filed by the prosecution for summoning the respondents as additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been declined on the ground that prayer was hit by the principle of res-judicata. It is also observed that the prosecution was required to move the court under the relevant provisions only after it was well equipped with the complete quantum of evidence available with it in order to succeed against the proposed accused.

(2.) Question of summoning an additional accused depends upon the evidence that is available. Such a prayer may not be open to be declined on the ground of resjudicata. At a particular stage, there may not be a sufficient evidence to summon any person as an additional accused. If subsequent thereto, some evidence is available on record and which satisfies the test for summoning any person as additional accused, then that has to be considered by the Court concerned at that stage on the basis of evidence and material that is available on record. Simply because the earlier application was declined, would not be a valid ground to decline the prayer on the principle of res-judicata. This legal position can not be in any serious dispute.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submits that against the impugned order, the petitioner has a remedy of filing a revision before the Court of Session. He is justified in making this submission. It may not now be appropriate to ask the petitioner to file a revision, once this Court has issued notice and the respondents now stand served. It would be in the fitness of the things to deal with the prayer in this petition. The trial Court can very well be asked to reconsider the prayer of the petitioner, ignoring the earlier order, where prayer was declined on the principle of res-judicata, which may not be attracted. The Court would see in case sufficient material is available on record to summon the respondents as additional accused or not. As a matter of abundant caution, it is observed that this Court has not considered or applied itself on the evidence to find if there is any material, much less sufficient material, to summon the respondents as additional accused. This discretion has to be exercised by the trial Court on the basis of evidence that is before the Court by applying the legal parameters which are well defined through various judgements. The parties would be at liberty to plead their respective cases before the trial Court.