- (1.) In connection with a trial relating to an offence punishable under Section 46A (c) of the Bengal Excise Act, invoking Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the prosecution moved an application before the Trial Court with a prayer for proceeding against the petitioner on the basis of the evidence of P.W. 1 and the P.W. 5. The trial Court having rejected such prayer, a criminal revision was moved before the Court of Sessions. The Court of Sessions reversed the order of the Trial Court and directed the petitioner be proceeded against in the said trial along with the accused already arraigned. The petitioner challenging the said order has moved the instant criminal revision.
(2.) Heard the Learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. Perused both the orders passed by the Trial Court as well as by the revisional Court and other materials on record. Considered the case laws relied upon on behalf of the parties.
(3.) According to the provisions of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in course of any enquiry into, or trial of, an offence, if it appears 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 for the offence which he appears to have committed. In the case of Michael Machado & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., 2000 SCC(Cri) 609, the Apex Court in paragraph 11 and 12 held as follows; "The basic requirements for invoking the above section is that it should appear to the Court from the evidence collected during trial or in the inquiry that some other person, who is not arraigned as an accused in that case, had committed an offence for which that person could be tried together with the accused already arraigned. It is not enough that the Court entertained some doubt, from the evidence, about the involvement of another person in the offence. In other words, the Court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence already collected regarding two aspects. First is that the other person has committed an offence. Second is that for such offence that other person could as well as be tried along with the already arraigned accused. (para 11) But even then, what is conferred on the Court is only a discretion as could be discerned from the words "the Court may proceed against such person". The discretionary power so conferred should be exercised only to achieve criminal justice. It is not that the Court should turn against another person whenever it comes across evidence connecting that another person also with the offence. A judicial exercise is called for keeping a conspectus of the case, including the stage at which the trial has proceeded already and the quantum of evidence collected till then, and also the amount of time which the Court had spent for collecting such evidence. It must be remembered that there is no compelling duty on the Court to proceed against other persons. (para 12);