V.M.JAIN,J - (1.) THIS order shall dispose of two petitions; first, Criminal Reference No. 5 of 2001 dated 24.8.2000, made by Dr. S.K. Kapoor, Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, in case bearing No. 58 dated 27.3.200 under Sections 302/201/34, IPC, of Police Station, Kosli, District Rewari, with a prayer for invoking inherent jurisdiction for considering the summoning of Ram Kishan, Rajbir and Rajesh @ Raju (whose names are put in column No. 2) as accused to stand trial along with their co-accused and the second, Criminal Misc. No. 23294-M of 2001, fled by accused, Pohap Singh, under Section 482, Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to this Court to decide the above-mentioned reference, made by Additional Sessions Judge, Rewri. Since common questions of law and fact are involved and pertain to the same FIR, both the cases are being disposed of together.
(2.) THE basis for the above-mentioned reference, made by learned Additional Sessions Judge, is the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported as Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1998(4) RCR(Crl.) 552 (SC) : 1998 SCC (Cri.) 1554. In the reported case, their Lordships of Supreme Court were considering the stage, at which a person, who had not been challaned by the Police (while submitting the challan), could be summoned as accused by the Courts. It was held that such a person could be summoned as accused under Section 319, Cr.P.C., only after some of the prosecution evidence had been recorded and some material had come on the record to justify the summoning of such a person as accused. While considering that question, their Lordships also considered the situation where the Sessions Judge might notice from the material produced, but before any evidence was taken on record, that any other person should also have necessarily been made accused (without which the framing of charge would be defective or that it might lead to a mis-carriage of justice); would the Sessions Court be completely powerless to deal with such a contingency. Another situation considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was that the material produced by the investigating agency would show the positive involvement of a person, who was not shown in the array of the accused, due to some inadvertence or omission, would the Court wait until the evidence was collected to get that person arraigned in the case ? It was held by the Supreme Court that even though such situations might arise only in extremely rare cases, yet the Sessions Court was not altogether powerless to deal with such situations to prevent mis-carriage of justice. It was held that it would, then be open to the Sessions Court to send a report to the High Court, detailing the situation, so that the High Court could, in its inherent powers or revisional powers, direct the committing Magistrate to rectify the committal order by issuing process to such left out accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court hastened to add that such procedure needed be resorted to only for rectifying or correcting such grave mistakes. It is in view of the law laid down by their Lordships of Supreme Court, in the above-mentioned authority, that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, thought it fit to make the present reference to this court for summoning Ram Kishan, Rajbir and Rajesh @ Raju, as accused, to stand trial along with their co-accused. In the reference petition, it has been alleged that said Ram Kishan, Rajbir and Rajesh @ Raju have also been named as the persons who had participated at the time of occurrence, besides the persons who have been challaned by the Police. Since there was material on the record showing the positive involvement of these three persons, the learned Additional Sessions Judge proceeded to make the reference to this court for summoning these three persons as accused to stand trial along with their co-accused, in view of the law laid down by their Lordships of Supreme Court, in Ranjit Singh's case (supra).
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the State and perusing the record, in my opinion, the reference made by learned Additional Sessions Judge, in this case, is misconceived. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in 1998 SCC (Crl.) 1554 (supra), had specifically held that the situations, where the Sessions Court might have to send the report to the High Court for exercising its inherent or revisional powers, might arise only in extremely rare cases. It was further held in the said authority that the said procedure needed to be resorted to only for rectifying or correcting such grave mistakes. However, in my opinion, the facts and circumstances of the present case, did not justify the making of a reference to this Court for exercising its inherent powers. After the case was committed to the court of Sessions, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was competent enough to frame the charges against the accused, against whom the challan had been submitted in Court and thereafter to proceed to record the prosecution evidence. If after recording the prosecution evidence or a part thereof, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was of the opinion that enough material had come on the record justifying summoning of other persons (who had not been challaned by the Police), the Additional Sessions Judge could have proceeded to consider the summoning of those persons as accused, exercising the powers under Section 319, Cr.P.C. On the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my opinion, it was not a case which was covered by the extra-ordinary situation/situations, referred to by their Lordships of Supreme Court in Ranjit Singh's case (supra). Under these circumstances, there was absolutely no occasion for the learned Additional Sessions Judge, for making the present reference to this Court.;