RATAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is criminal Misc. petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. wherein the complainant petitioner (Ratan S/o Chouthi Jatav) has challenged the order of the learned trial Court whereby it has directed the prosecution to draw attention of the Court to the application filed under Section 319 Cr. PC, as and when the prosecution evidence is closed. The complainant further sought direction for firstly deciding final report in FIR No. 14/97 dated 4.5.2000 as regards Bane Singh prior to the conclusion of trial in Case No. 28/97.

(2.) IT is the case of the complainant petitioner that under the impugned order the learned trial Court had rejected application under Section 319 Cr. P.C. for not taking cognizance against principal accused Bane Singh in FIR No. 14/97 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 326 and 302 IPC, registered at PS Surot (Karauli) and that apart, though final report had been submitted by the police on 4.5.2000 before the CJM Hindaun City but no order in respect of approval or disapproval of final report has been passed by the Magistrate.

(3.) IT is trite law that under Section 319 Cr, PC the Court has ample power to proceed against persons not being the accused appearing to be guilty of offence and cognizance against such newly accused is deemed to have been taken in the same manner in which cognizance has first taken of the offence against the earlier accused obviously because of the fact that it deals with a matter arising out of the proceeding already instituted. It does not debar the Sessions Court from exercising its power under Section 319 Cr. PC to add any person for trial without there being a committal order against such person (See 1983 (1) SCC 1). In fact Section 319 Cr. PC covers post cognizance stage where during an inquiry or trial the involvement or complicity of a person/persons not named by the investigating agency has surfaced. It does also not only cover cases where despite name of a person figuring during investigation he is not sent up by the investigating agency but even the case where the complicity of such a person comes light for the first time during the course of evidence recorded at the time of inquiry or trial. I have lent support from the dictum of law in Kishan v. State : 1993CriLJ1700 followed in Nisar v. State : 1995CriLJ2118 and Rajkishor v. State : 1996CriLJ2523 . Since it is the evidence tendered during trial of the case if the offence is triable by a court of Sessions, therefore, as in the case at hand, material placed before the committing court cannot be treated as evidence collected during inquiry or trial (See Ranjit v. State : 1998CriLJ4618 . In the Instant case as is evident from the impugned order, the prosecution evidence had yet to be completed and the recording of evidence of eye witnesses is still pending, in my considered view, the Additional Sessions Judge has committed no mistake of law in deferring consideration of invoking Section 319 Cr. PC. The learned trial Judge has rightly directed the prosecution to draw attention of the Court for invoking Section 319 Cr. PC only upon closure of its evidence.