HUKANI SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed by four petitioners viz. Hukam Singh ,prithvi Singh, Man Mohan and Jai Kishan against the order dated 5. 5. 1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Jodhpur regarding framing of charges under ss. 307,149,147 and 341, IPC. THE police has submitted a charge-sheet against petitioners No. 1,2 and 3 and investigation was kept pending under sec. 173 (8), Cr. P. C. against petitioner No. 4. .

(2.) THE aforesaid revision came up before me for admission and disposal of ad interim order dated 3. 6. 94. After hearing, Mr. P. N. Mohanani, learned counsel for the petitioners, the revision filed by petitioners No. 1 to 3 was dismissed on the aforesaid date. As regard petitioner No. 4 Jai Kishan, he was directed to move an application before the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur and operation of the impugned order dated 5. 5. 1994 about framing of charges against petitioner no. 4 was ordered to be kept in abeyance for a period of two months.

(3.) THE main thrust of argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner No. 4 Shri P. N. Mohanani is that Sec. 319, Cr. P. C. being a self-contained provision, the power thereunder can be exercised strictly in the terms of the Section, which permits the exercise of power only if it appears from the evidence in the course of inquiry or trial of an offence that any person besides the accused already put up for trial, has committed any offence arising from the incident in question. Mr. Mohanani, learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted before me that the power can not be exercised before evidence is led as the involvement of accused-petitioner No. 4 Jai Kishan must appear from the evidence tendered at the trial because it is at that stage, that the court must apply its mind about the complicity of the accused- petitioner No. 4 against whom the investigating officer had not submitted charge-sheet and thought it proper to withhold the submission of charge-sheet. THErefore, according to the learned counsel for petitioner No. 4 since the trial had not commenced and the prosecution had not led any evidence, the stage for exercise of power had not reached to frame charges against accused-petitioner No. 4 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Jodhpur.