ATEEK Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant criminal revision petition under Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr. P. C. is preferred by the accused-petitioners against the order dated 20. 02. 2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Dholpur in Sessions Case No. 68/2006, whereby cognizance has been taken against the accused petitioners under Section 319 Cr. P. C. and they have been summoned through warrants of arrest.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that First Information Report was lodged by the complainant Chintamani Sharma alleging therein that when he along with some other employees went to inspect the site about electricity theft and when he inspected the houses of Abdul Salam, Ateek, Anish, Abdul Kalam and Ballo, it was found that electric equipments have been tempered with, therefore, some of them were seized. During inspection which was conducted by the team, suddenly aforesaid accused along with 4-5 persons assaulted the complainant and other employees and snatched the seized articles and due to assault the complainant also received injury.

(3.) LEARNED Public Prosecutor also placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shashikant Singh Vs. Tarkeshwar Singh And Another, reported in (2002)5 SCC 738 = (RLW 2002 (4) SC 506), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the case of Michael Machado and another (supra), has held that trial of newly added accused on conclusion of main trial- Where during pendency of trial of an accused another person is summoned by trial Court under S. 319 and if by the time the person summoned could be brought before the court the trial is concluded, held, the person summoned can be tried for the offence for which he was summoned- Requirement under sub- section (1) of S. 319 that the person summoned "could be tried together with the accused" is directory whereas requirement under subsection (4) of S. 319 regarding de novo trial of such person is mandatory. "