Harbans Singh Rai, J. - (1.) J .S. Sekhoa, J. has made this reference, - -vide his order dated April 26, 1990 as according to the learned Judge, there is a conflict between the provisions of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) as interpreted by a Division Bench of this Court in Lal Chand and Anr. v. State of Haryana., 1983 CLJ 1394 and the provisions of Section 319 of the Code, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Joginder Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr. : A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 339. The learned Judge has further stated in the preference that a single Bench of this Court in Mithlesh Kumari v. State of Haryana, 1989 (2) C.L.R. 321, had also held that cognizance of the offence against the additional accused can be taken by the trial court only after recording some evidence. As there is some conflict, J.S. Sekhon, J. has referred the matter to a larger Bench.
(2.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and given our careful consideration to the point of law involved. To our mind, there is no conflict between the view taken by a Division Bench of this Court and the view taken by the Apex Court in Joginder Singh's case (Supra). Our reasons for reaching this conclusion are as under:
(3.) IN Lal Chand's case the incident took place on August 27, 1980, at 8.30 A.M. in the office of the Truck Union, Sonepat. Cross -cases were registered by the Police against the parties. One of the victims of the crime Ham Kumar, however, died on September 2, 1980 and consequently the offence was converted to one under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. Alter investigation, six accused were challaned by the police for the said offence. Lal Chand, President of the Truck Union, was found to be innocent and the ground for finding him innocent given by the investigating Agency was that he was in the police station in connection with an application of one Chiranjit Lal, at the time of the occurrence. The committing Magistrate committed the aforesaid six accused challaned by the police for trial to the Court of Sessions but did not commit Lal Chand on the basis of finding of Investigating Agency. Before the Court of Sessions, Bharat Singh complainant made an application for summoning Lal Chand also as an accused person to stand his trial in the case along with other co -accused. The learned Additional Sessions Judge Sonepat, - -vide his order dated August 6, 1981 summoned Lal Chand as an accused in the case to be put in the dock along with the other co -accused. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that since all the injured eye -witnesses had categorically made statements before the police involving Lal Chand for the commission of the alleged offence a prime facie case against him was clearly made out and a plea of alibi by him could not conclusively absolve him of the charge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further stated in his judgment that even though the provisions of Section 319 of the Code were not attracted yet he had the power to summon and frame a charge against Lal Chand Petitioner, under Sections 227 and 228 of the Code. It was specifically mentioned in the judgment that it was wholly unnecessary to be drawn into the controversy. It was mentioned in para No. 12 of the judgment as under: From the above, it is evident that there is some conflict of judicial opinion on this point. However, in view of the fact that I have rested myself primarily on the provisions of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, it is wholly unnecessary to be drawn into this controversy under Section 319 of the Code. I would, therefore, refrain from expressing any opinion on this specific point.;