MOHAN SINGH KANDOLA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revisionist has assailed the order dated 16.09.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, SBS Nagar vide which the petitioner had been summoned as an additional accused in FIR No.41 dated 17.05.2011 registered under Sections 450, 307, 323, 379, 148, 149 and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

(2.) NOTICE was given to the respondents who has put in appearance. Both the sides have been heard.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and after 17 days a supplementary statement (Annexure P -2) was made and the petitioner was named but it only refers to his presence and no specific role had been attributed. It was urged that the petitioner is a British citizen and the name has purposely have been given so as to rope in the family. It was urged that the petitioner was not present at the spot and was in a school meeting and the police had verified this fact and had not challaned him and his name was placed in column No.2. He urges that the trial Court has only referred to the evidence and has not recorded any finding whether the petitioner was prima facie guilty of the offence or that there was sufficient material to summon the additional accused in view of the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2014 1 RCR(Cri) 623.