ABHEY SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point involved in these two criminal revisions is common and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) IN Revision No. 308/84, the police had put up a challan against three persons Chhail Singh, Mehar Singh & Roop Singh for offences u/ss 307, 325, 323, 341, 147, 148 and 149 T. P. C. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the trial started. The prosecution evidence was over. The accused were examined u/s 315 and thereafter the defence witnesses were also examined and the case was fixed for final arguments. During the course of arguments, on 8. 8. 84, the learned P. P. moved an application u/s 319 Cr. P. C. for taking cognizance against Ram Singh and Padam Singh. The learned Sessions Judge heard arguments on this application also and fixed the case for pronouncement of judgment as also the order on this application on 10. 8. 84. The learned Judge by his judgment dated 22. 8 84 acquitted the accused persons of the charge u/s 307 I. P. C. but convicted the three accused who had already been tried for offences u/ss 326/34, 325/34 324/34 and 323 I. P. C. and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment and fine. By another order of the same date, the learned Sessions Judge directed that cognizance is also taken against Abhey Singh, Padam Singh and Ran Singh for offences u/ss 326/34, 325/34, 324/34 and s. 323 I. P. C. He further observed that since all these offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate, the matter may be sent to the Chief Judl. Magistrate, Barmer to summon the three aforesaid persons and deal with them in accordance with law. It is against this order that the present petitioners have come up in revision.

(3.) FROM the facts stated above, in both these cases, there is absolutely no reason to think that the order u/s 319 Cr. P. C had been passed before the judgment against the accused already before the court had been announced. It may, however, be stated that in the case of Toga & others, the trial court has observed :- *********** It leaves no room for doubt that that observation could made by the learned Sessions Judge only after pronouncement of the judgment against those accused persons. Again in the order sheet of 2. 8. 84 first brief note of the judgment has been recorded and thereafter it states that arguments on the application of the P. P. (u/s 319 Cr. P. C.) were heard and by a separate order, cognizance was taken against the present petitioners. In the case of Abhey Singh & others also, the order sheet shows that first the judgment against the accused was announced thereafter the application u/s 319 Cr. P. C. was considered and by a separate order cognizance was taken against the petitioners in that case.