- (1.) S. R. Bhargava, J. This revision has been heard finally at admission stage. It is being disposed of finally according to Court Rules.
(2.) FACTS are that a lady of village died and on certificate, alleged to have been issued by revisionist and one Shriram, Pradhans of villages Narapura and Balua respectively, dead body was cremated. Father of the lady was informed that the lady died of snake bite. The certificate granted was also of death by snake bite. But prosecution story is that when father of the lady made enquiry about the truth he came to know that poison had been administered to the lady and she died due to poisoning. Father of the lady Ramjeet was examined as P. W. 1 who deposed the above story and the fact that the accused of the case wanted Rs. 5000/- for dowry. On the testimony of P. W. 1 the learned Additional Sessions Judge summoned the revisionist for joint trial with other accused under Section 319, Cr. P. C. Revisionist has come to this Court against this. Section 319, Cr. P. C. lays down that it should appear from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused the Court may proceed against such person which he appears, to have committed. Significant words occurring in Section 319 with respect to the person sought to be proceeded against are : "it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has comtr'itted any offence" and "which he appears to have committed". These words clearly signiiv that evidence even though ex pane should be sufficient to make out a prima facie case. Now the question in the instant case, arises whether it can prima facie appear thai revisionist committed offence punishable under Section 201, I. P. C.
(3.) FOR offence under Section 201, I. P. C. the essential ingredients are - (1) Knowledge or having reason to believe that offence has been committed. (2) Causing any evidence of the commision of the offence to disappear. (3) Intention of screening the offender from legal punishment or giving any information respect ing the offence with the knowledge or belief that the information is false, with the intention of screening the offender. In the instant case, from the evidence of Ramjeet (P. W. I) only this much could be said that revisionist was one of the two persons who issued a certificate of cause of death as snake bite which helped the cremation of the dead body without post-mortem. From the evidence of Ramjeet (P. W. I), it may also be assumed that the cause of death was poisoning and not snake bite. But that evidence did not show that revisionist had knowledge that the lady died of poisoning. The evidence does not also show that revisionist had reason to believe that the lady died of poisoning. There is also no evidence that the revisionist issued the certificate with the intention of screening the offender. There can be no presumption of bad faith. If the revisionist believed the version given to him and issued certificate of cause of death as snake bite that can be no ground to infer that the intention of the revisionist in issuing the certificate was to screen the offender. It is thus evident that several essential ingredients of offence under Section 201, I. P. C. were missing. Hence it cannot be said that the evidence made out prima facie case of offence under Section 201, I. P. C. against the revisionist. Thus, revisionist could not have been summoned under Section 319, Cr. P. C.;