G.S.CHAHAL,J - (1.) PREM Singh and Netar Singh petitioners by means of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seek quashing of the order dated 14-12-1992 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide which the petitioner were summoned under the provisions of Section 319 of the Code.
(2.) IN the first information report, the petitioner were named alongwith their other associates for certain offences. The police, however, found both the present petitioners to be innocent and did not put up the challan against them. Charges were framed on 24th March, 1992 against Jarnail Singh and Surinder Singh who had been sent up for trial and the case was posted for evidence. Before any evidence was recorded the Additional Public Prosecutor moved an application that perusal of the FIR revealed that Prem Singh armed with kahi and Netar Singh armed with dangs had inflicted injuries to Amarjit Singh and Swaran Singh and these allegations were corroborated by the eye-witnesses and the medical evidence, and it was thus prayed that they be also summoned to stand trial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, allowed this application. The legality of this order is challenged by the petitioners in this petition. Section 319, Sub-section (1) reads as follows :- "319. - (1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into or trial of an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person should be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed." There can be two stages for considering whether there is some other offender who should be tried for offence at the trial. The Court of Session takes cognizance of an offence after the case is committed and it is settled law that after coming into force of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 it is the case and not the accused who are committed to the Court of Session. The Court of Session can, on the basis of the documents referred to in report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. form an opinion if any person other than the accused mentioned in report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. is involved in the commission of the offence. The documents referred to in that report can be considered for forming that opinion and also for framing of charge but once that stage is over the Court of Session can exercise the powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. only if the evidence brought before it justifies such conclusion. For my above referred view, I draw support from Kishan Singh and others v. State of Bihar 1993(1) Chandigarh Criminal Cases 97 (SC). Once charge had been framed the Additional Sessions Judge could exercise powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. only if on evidence brought forth some material was found which may justify the summoning of the petitioners. I thus quash the order dated 14-12-1992 Annexure P. 1. The learned Additional Sessions Judge shall be at liberty to reconsider the matter of summoning of the petitioners if after recording of the evidence of the prosecution he finds some persons to be offenders alongwith the accused since charged. This petition is allowed with the above observations.;