S.S.SODHI, J. - (1.) JAGJIWAN Singh and his daughter Sharanjit Kaur were ordered to be summoned as accused by the impugned order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana in the case committed to the Court of Sessions arising from the alleged murder of Mandeepak Singh, Advocate.
(2.) THE facts relevant to this matter are that Amarjit Singh, the father of Mandeepak Singh was named as the accused in the First Information Report. During investigation, the statement of Manjit Kaur the mother of Mandeepak Singh, deceased, was recorded. According to her, the murder of Mandeepak Singh was as a result of a conspiracy between her husband Amarjit Singh accused, his brother Santokh Singh, nephew Mastan Singh and the two petitioners Jagjiwan Singh and Sharanjit Kaur. Four other persons also made statements to this effect during investigation, they being Swaran Singh, Bakshish Singh, Sarwan Singh and Baldev Singh. The Magistrate did not however, sent up Jagjiwan Sigh8 and Sharanjit Kaur as accused as they were shown in column No. 2 by the police. It was on the application of the complainant, Manjit Kaur, that the impugned order came to be passed. The challenge to this order now is that not having been committed for trial, the petitioner could not have been summoned as accused except under the provisions of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code), in terms of which a persons can be summoned as an accused only after some evidence has been recorded. In the present case, the two petitioners had been summoned without any evidence having been recorded. The impugned order was thus illegal, it was argued.
(3.) THERE being a conflict of authorities, with regard to the question raised, the matter was ordered to be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for it to be considered by a Larger Bench. In Lal Chand and another v. State of Haryana, 1983(2) RCR(Crl.) 587 (P&H) : Criminal Misc. No. 3837 -M of 1981, the legal position was considered and the matter has now been sent back for decision on merits. The question which arose for consideration in Lal Chand's case (supra) was whether the Court of Session without itself recording evidence could summon a person to stand trial as an accused (along with others committed to it by a Magistrte) on the basis of documents and the final report of the Investigating Officer under section 173 of the Code. This question was answered in the affirmative. The view expressed being that "once a COURT OF COMPETENT Jurisdiction, be it a Magistrte or the Court of Session, takes cognizance of the offence, it is not only within the court's power to summon any one who on adequate materials appears to it to be prima faice guilty of the said offence, but indeed it is its duty do so.";