B.L.YADAV, J. - (1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 13 -6 -86 passed by Ilnd Munsif Magistrate, Etawah in a case under section 323/324 IPC summoning the applicants under section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code).
(2.) IT appears that the case was proceeding and some statement in Examination in Chief was made by PW 1 Janak Singh who stated that the present applicant were also accused in the said case. An application thereafter was made under section 319 (1) of the Code for summoning the applicants and that application was allowed. Against that order present revision has been filed.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant urged that it appears that cross -examination was not conducted and only statement was recorded in Examination in Chief, hence the same cannot be said to be a complete statement or com - plete evidence and the applicants could not be summoned just on the basis of the statement made in the examination -in -chief. Reliance was placed on Amarjeet Singh v. State of Punjab, 1983 CrLJ NOC 98. Before considering the point whether applicants were correctly summoned in view of the Section 319, it is better to ascertain the intention of Legislature in enacting Section 319. It is said to be the duty of a Judge to make such construction of a statute as shall suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. (See Heydon's case 3 Co. Rep. 7 a.) In Hawkins v. Gathercole, (1855) 43 E. R. 429, it was observed that, " The Judges of the law in all times past have so far pursued the intent of the makers of the Statutes, that they have expounded Acts which were general in words to be, but particular, where the intent was particular. " In order to have the correct interpretation of section 319 and to know the intent of the makers of the statute it is better to have object and reasons for enacting Section 319, particularly when in a somewhat different and restricted form a corresponding provision existed under section 351 of the Old Code. The Object and Reasons in enacting section 319 are to be found in 41st Report of the Law Commission which is as follows : " It happens sometimes, though not very often that a Magistrate hearing a case against certain accused finds from the evidence that some person, other than the accused before him, is also concerned in that very offence, or in a connected offence It is only proper that a Magistrate should have the power to call and join him in the proceedings. Section 351 (of the Old Code) provides for such a situation, but only if that person happens to be attending the Court. He can then be detained and proceeded against. There is no express provision under section 351 for summoning such a person if he is not present in Court. Such a provision would make section 351 fairly comprehensive and we think it proper to expressly provide for that situation. " ;