DALIP SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who have been chargesheeted for the offences under Ss.447, 364, 302 and 302 read with S.34, I.P.C. by the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, in an application under S.319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Code') in that Court prayed for taking cognizance against six other persons alleged to have been named in the dying declaration of Kalwant Singh. The learned Sessions Judge following the principle enunciated in the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of She Ram Singh v. The State of Rajasthan, 1982 Cri LR (Raj) 657 rejected the prayer on the ground that the word 'evidence' occurring in S.319 the Code means the evidence recorded by the Court during the' course of inquiry into or trial of the case and not the statements recorded by the Police or the documents filed along with the charge sheet. The petitioners feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Sessions Judge filed petition under S.482 of the Code with the prayer that the impugned Order be set aside and proceedings and charge-sheet against the petitioners be quashed. The correctness of the view taken in Sheoram Singh's case has been seriously assailed and it has been prayed that the petition be referred to a larger Bench of this Court for reconsideration of the view taken by the Division Bench in that case. The prayer for referring the petition to a larger Bench having been allowed the matter comes up before this Bench.

(2.) In Sheoram Singh's case (1982 Cri LR (Raj) 657) the point under reference was as to whether the word 'evidence' used in S.319 of the Code signifies and means the evidence recorded in the Court, or it can also include the evidence recorded by the Police both, oral and documentary. The learned Judges discussing the decisions of this Court and other High Courts and Hon'ble the Supreme Court regarding the power of the Court to take cognizance against persons not arrayed as accused in the charge-sheet or the committal order, and construing the meaning of the 'evidence', and the implications of the term "inquiry into and trial or" held as under :

(3.) In view of that finding, the five revision petitions under reference before their Lordshilps, in which the cognizance against the various petitioners in the revision petitions was taken without recording of the statement of any witness by the Court were allowed and the impugned orders passed by the trial Court for taking cognizance under S.319 of the Code were quashed.