TARSIM SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed to quash the order dated 30.4.2007 passed by IX Addl. Sessions Judge. Muzaffarpur in Trial No. 43 of 2007 thereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has issued processes against the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial alongwith the accused persons.

(2.) It appears that on 13.2.2004, the personnel's of D.R.I. Muzaffarpur a arrested two persons, namely. Somnath and Sarjeet alongwith 220 kgms. of POPPV husk/straw kept in false cavity made in truck bearing No. PB-08L-9396. Accordingly, after enquiry and meeting of other formalities, complaint was filed against both of them under provisions of N.D.P.S. Act. After cognizance, both were put on trial. In course of trial, before charge, the prosecution examined two witnesses, namely. P.W.1, Rajesh Kumar Srivastava and P.W.2. Munarik Ram. Thereafter, the prosecution filed a petition dated 12.9.2006 to add the petitioner as additional accused, being owner of the truck in question. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on the basis of material collected during enquiry i.e. seizure list, confessional statements etc. as well as evidence or the witnesses recorded before charge allowed the petition and made the petitioner as additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

(3.) It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the witnesses examined before the charge have not stated anything against the petitioner. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the basis of the materials collected before filing of the complaint case has added the petitioner as additional accused. Which is illegal and bad in law. It is further submitted that the word "evidence" mentioned in Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. is the evidence adduced during trial of the case and not the material collected during the enquiry made before filing of the case. For that the learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the apex court Ranjeet Singh v.State of Punjab, 1998 CrLJ 4618