SWIL LIMITED Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted in S.L.P. (Cri.) No. 620 of 2001.

(2.) The High Court of Delhi in Criminal Misc. (Main) No. 1818 of 2000 vide judgment and order dated 3-7-2000 arrived at the conclusion that "the Court was totally unjustified in summoning the petitioner when the petitioner was not shown in the column of accused persons in the charge-sheet". Relying on S. 319, Cr.P.C., the High Court held that such persons could be summoned by the Court under S. 319 only after the evidence has been recorded. That order is challenged in this appeal.

(3.) Learned senior counsel, Dr. Singhvi, appearing for the appellant submitted that the impugned order passed by the High Court ignored the provisioins of S.190, Cr.P.C. and there was no question of referring to S. 319, Cr.P.C. at the stage. As against this, learned senior counsel, Mr. R. K. Jain, appearing for respondent No. 2 supported the impugned order and submitted that in the charge-sheet respondent No. 2 was not shown as accused and his name appeared only in column No. 2 and, therefore, without there being any additional evidence on record. Magistrate was not justified in issuing summons. He, therefore, contended that the High Court rightly referred to S. 319 and held that without there being any additional evidence respondent No. 2 could not be summoned as accused.