SHAMSHER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, along with Baldev Singh and Joginder Singh, was initially named as an accused in FIR No. 41 dated 28.8.2005 registered at Police Station Ghanaur under Sections 307/34 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act. The said FIR was registered on the basis of a statement made by Ram Singh, wherein he stated that on an exhortation made by the petitioner asking his co-accused Joginder Singh to fire a shot from his gun and he would manage everything, said Joginder Singh fired at Sham Lal, who received injuries and fell down. Thereafter, all the three accused ran away from the spot.

(2.) AFTER the completion of the investigation, challan was presented by the police against Baldev Singh and Joginder Singh accused, while the petitioner was placed in column No. 2 as he was found innocent. An application was also filed by the investigating agency for the discharge of the petitioner from the case. However, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The petitioner, whose name kept in column No. 2, was also directed to appear, along with his co-accused, before the Court of Session on 24.5.2006. Vide order dated 13.6.2006, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala after perusing the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., held that prima facie a case under Sections 307/34 IPC and 25 of Arms Act was made out against all the accused, including the petitioner, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was found innocent during the investigation of the case and his name was kept in column No. 2 of the challan. In fact, an application was also filed by the police for discharge of the petitioner from the case. Instead of accepting the said request of the police, the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class erred in directing the further appearance of the petitioner before the Court of Session, while committing the case to the said Court. Moreover, the charges have been framed by learned Additional Sessions Judge against the petitioner, although there was no evidence available against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to Raj Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar and another, 1996(2) RCR(Criminal) 804 : AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1931 in contending that a person, who was not an accused before the Court, could neither be committed under Section 209 Cr.P.C. nor charged thereafter by the Court of Session. It was held as under :-