- (1.) The matrix of the facts & material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that, initially, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner (accused) and his other co-accused, by means of Crime Report, bearing No. 34 dated 8.8.2002 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under section 120-B read with sections 420, 409 IPC and sections 13(1)(c) & 13 (1) (d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as "the PC Act") by the respondent-Central Bureau of Investigation (for brevity "the CBI").
(2.) After completion of the investigation, the CBI submitted the final police report (Annexure P2) and accordingly, the accused were charge sheeted to face the trial of indicated offences, by way of charge sheet dated 7.2.2006 and the case was slated for prosecution evidence. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused were recorded as contemplated under section 313 Cr. PC on 30.3.2009. As soon as, the accused examined four witnesses in defence, in the meantime, the petitioner-accused moved an application on 21.5.2012 to summon S. K. Abrol as an additional accused under section 319 Cr. PC.
(3.) The trial Judge dismissed the application u/s 319 Cr. PC, by virtue of impugned order dated 2.6.2012, which, in substance, is as under:- "From appraisal of record in light of aforesaid rival contentions, it is crystal clear that S. K. Abrol is named in FIR. In challan/final report, SK Abrol was kept in column no. 2 and was cited as prosecution witness. The charges were framed on 07.02.2006 against accused. The prosecution got examined 31 witnesses. Statement of accused, as per Section 313 Cr. PC, was recorded on 30.03.2009. In defence evidence, accused got examined four witnesses. The application for summoning SK Abrol as additional accused was filed on 21.05.2012. So, the application is at a belated stage of the case. If application is allowed, a denovo trial shall take place. In application, it is pleaded that SK Abrol had prepared and signed application for demand draft, demand draft; withdrawal slip; banker's cheque etc. SK Abrol is not alleged to have misappropriated any amount of money. As per judgment of Michael Machado and another case, it is well settled principle of law that application under Section 319 Cr. PC is not to be entertained at a belated stage. As per Sarabjit Singh's case, it is well settled that a person should be summoned, only when court finds that evidence on record would reasonably lead to conviction of person sought to be summoned. In view of above material facts and well settled principles of law, arguments of learned counsel for accused, being devoid of merit, are untenable. No other point was argued. Hence, in view of above observations, application dated 21.05.2012 under Section 319 Cr. PC for summoning of SK Abrol as additional accused is dismissed. " ;