SHARMA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. To decide the reference, it would be appropriate to first refer to the factual matrix which have been rise to the reference for answer of this court.
(2.) ON 14. 8. 2001 Indra Singh Head Constable of P. S. Nasirabad telephonically furnished information given by Ramdhan S/o Ghisa at Police Station Sarwad, to the effect that his father Ghisa who had sustained knife injury has succumbed to the injuries on the way while he was being taken to the Hospital. Having received the information, the SHO along with police personnels reached the Hospital at Nasirabad, where Ramdhan submitted a written report alleging therein that on 14. 8. 2001 at about 12 noon he was going from Nasirabad to his village on a motor cycle. At the crossing known as `12-meel choraha' Ratan, Jiwan, Hanshraj who were taking his father in tractor, made him to stop and informed that accused Amra, Shaitan, Badri and Rameshwar have belaboured Ghisa and Rameshwar has struck knife blow, as a result of which he became unconscious. They hired a jeep and took the injured to the Hospital, where the doctors declared him dead. Thereafter he informed the police at Police Station Nasirabad City. A day earlier, the accused had threatened Ghisa to kill him and so as to give effect to the threat, the accused persons with an intention to kill Ghisa inflicted knife blow on his ribs. The incident was witnessed by Ratan, Jiwan and Hanshraj. It was in these circumstances that the investigating officer completed investigation and submitted charge sheet for offence under Section 302/34 only against two accused, namely Shaitan and Badri. As regards accused Amra and Rameshwar, named in the FIR, the Investigating Officer having found that at the time of incident Amara was at Rampura, while Rameshwar was at Chandigarh did not file charge sheet against them. After the case was committed to the court of Sessions, the learned Additional Sessions registered the case and fixed it to 5. 2. 2002 for arguments on charge. On that day, the complainant filed an application under Sec. 193 Cr. P. C. , for which, later-on, the Public Prosecutor submitted that the said application may be treated to have been filed on behalf of prosecution. In the course of arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor tried to convince the court about the involvement of accused Amra and Rameshwar as well and prayed that cognizance of the offence may also be taken against Amra and Rameshwar and they be also summoned through arrest warrants. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing counsel for the parties and considering the law propounded by the Apex Court and the High Courts, rejected the application of the complainant/prosecution filed under Sec. 193 Cr. P. C. on the ground that it has no power at this stage to take cognizance of the offence against Amara and Rameshwar while exercising powers under Sec. 193 Cr. P. C. The learned Judge was of the view that it is only in exercise of powers under Sec. 319 Cr. P. C. that the court on the basis of evidence recorded during trial can implead any person as an accused. In Ranjeet Singh vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1998 SC 3148), their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed that,in some rarest of rarest circumstances if there is difficulty or inconvenience in imparting justice and there is any apprehension of miscarriage of justice, then the court of Sessions has an option to send a detailed report explaining entire circumstances to the High Court, with a prayer that in exercise of inherent or revisional powers direct the Magistrate who committed the case to the court of Sessions, to rectify the committal order and to issue process against the left out accused. Relying upon the aforesaid observations of the Apex Court and referring the factual aspects of the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his letter dated 14. 5. 2002 has submitted that it is a resrest of the rare cases and hence to avoid miscarriage of justice it is necessary that Rameshwar S/o Amra and Amra S/o Jagannath by caste Jat, residents of Kotdi, Police Station Sarwar, district Ajmer be also summoned to face trial, which is not possible for this court at this stage and that is possible only if the High Court in exercise of inherent or revisional powers directs the concerned committal Magistrate to issue necessary process.
(3.) AT the very out set it may be stated that the question formulated by this court vide order dated 10. 2. 2005 is of no consequence, inasmuch as the learned Additional Sessions Judge himself has concluded that it cannot issue process to add other persons as accused, at this stage, in exercise of powers under Section 193 Cr. P. C. In Ranjeet Singh vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1998 SC 3148 (supra)), their Lordships of the Apex Court were of the view that once the Sessions Court takes cognizance of the offence pursuant to the committal order the only other stage when the court is empowered to add any person to the array of the accused is after reaching evidence collection when power under Section 319 of the Code can be invoked. Their Lordships were unable to find any other power for the Sessions Court to permit addition of new person or persons to the array of accused. Their Lordships were of the view that of course it is not necessary for the court to wait until the entire evidence is collected for exercising the said power. Same view came to be reiterated by the Apex Court in Kishori Singh and Others vs. State of Bihar & Another (2000 (4) Crimes 158 (SC) and the case of Ranjit Singh (supra) was also considered. From the record it appears that FIR was lodged against 4 accused, namely, Amra, Shaitan, Badri and Rameshwar. The allegation was that accused Rameshwar inflicted a knife blow, which resulted in death of deceased. The Police after investigation concluded that accused Shaitan and Badri are guilty of having committed offence under Section 302/34 IPC. The investigating agency having found that Amra and Rameshwar were out of station at the time of incident, did not file charge sheet against them. From the material available on record it cannot be said to be a case where there could be miscarriage of justice. If after recording evidence it is found that Amra and Rameshwar were present at the time and place of occurrence and participated in the commission of offence, the Sessions Court is competent to add these two persons to the array of accused. In my firm view it is not a case where this court should exercise inherent or revisional powers. ;