- (1.) K. N. Sinha, J. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned A. G. A.
(2.) THE present revision came up before this Court, aggrieved by the order dated 16-10-2002 and 14-11- 2002 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in S. T. No. 48 of 2002, State v. Anil and another, under Section 306 IPC by which the revisionist was summoned as accused to face the trial under Section 319 Cr. P. C. As it is borne out by the record, Suresh Kumar lodged a report on 15-7-2000 at 8. 10 p. m. with police station Mussoorioe District Ghaziabad alleging that in the night between 7/8 July, Anil son of Vijay Pal came to the roof of complainant's house with an intention to commit theft. The complainant woke up and Anil was caught hold by the complainant and others. But by the intervention of the people of Mohalla, the matter was subsided. However, accused Anil and Vijay Pal facing trial and the revisionist spread a rumour that Anil had come to meet Km. Ranjeeta the daughter of the complainant. The daughter of complainant Km. Ranjeeta was shocked by rumour and ultimately on 9th July, 2002 the complainant's daughter Km. Ranjeeta put an end to her life because of this defamation. Consequently the report was lodged against the revisionist, her husband and her son. The police investigated the case and submitted charge-sheet against the two accused. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions which took cognizance, framed charge and entered into the prosecution evidence. Complainant was examined as P. W. 1 and in his examination-in-chief the name of revisionist Smt. Kamala Devi also came. On the application of the prosecution, considering the FIR and the statement of complainant, the Additional Sessions Judge summoned the revisionist under Section 319 Cr. P. C. by the order dated 16- 10-2002 which has been challenged in the present revision. In the present revision, it has been challenged that the trial Court had not considered the matter properly and it is well settled principle of law that for invoking the power under Section 319 Cr. P. C. , it should appear to the Court from the evidence that the person being summoned has committed an offence. The learned Counsel for the revisionist has submitted that on the allegation of by mere spreading rumour by the complainant, the revisionist could not be summoned. He has relied upon a decision reported in the case of Michael Machado and another v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2000 (2) JIC 5 (SC) ; J. T. 2000 (2) SC 531, in which the following observation has been made: "the Court while deciding whether to invoke the power under Section 319 of the Code, must address itself about the other constraints imposed by the first limb of sub-section (4) that proceedings in respect of newly added persons shall be commenced afresh and the witnesses re-examined. The whole proceedings must be re-commenced from the beginning of the trial, summon the witnesses once again and examine them and cross- examine them in order to reach the stage where it had reached earlier. If the witnesses already examined are quite a large in number the Court must seriously consider whether the objects sought to be achieved by such exercise is worth wasting the whole labour already undertaken. Unless the Court is hopeful that there is reasonable prospect of the case as against the newly brought accused ending in conviction of the offence concerned we should say that the Court should refrain from adopting such a course of action. "
(3.) I have very carefully examined this authority. The facts of that case are quite different to the case in hand. In the said case the Investigating Officers had already recommended to the Bank for initiating departmental action against those officers who were summoned under Section 319 Cr. P. C. Moreover 49 prosecutions witnesses, who were earlier examined had not named except when the last three witnesses were examined. The learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the appellants were also involved in the crime. The Apex Court held that in such circumstances the proceedings in respect of newly added person shall be commenced afresh and the witnesses be examined. The whole proceeding must be recommenced from beginning of the trial. The statements of about 49 witnesses do not show any evidence so as to implicate the new accused. Their names came in the evidence of enabling the trial Court to proceed to its normal culmination in the circumstances of the case.;