The prosecution then filed a petition under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure hereinafter the Code for summoning those three accused as well for facing trial.
2, 3 6.
During the trial, prosecution witnesses 1 2 examined on August 24, 2007 and February 2, 2008 respectively in their deposition narrated the occurrence in detail and also named accused number.2, 3 6 respondent number.2 4 herein , against whom the police had number submitted the charge sheet, among the offenders.
The police after investigation, submitted charge sheet under sections 143, 147, 451, 323, 427, 504, 506 read with section 149 of the Penal Code against all the accused named in the FIR, excepting accused number.
The magistrate by a brief order passed on August 18, 2009, rejected the application.
He further observed that it was an old case in which the accused had been appearing in companyrt from 2003.
Against the judgment and order passed by the magistrate, the appellant filed an application under section 482 of the Code which was rejected by the High Court by order dated December 15, 2009.
He took the view that the two witnesses were related to the companyplainant and numberindependent witness had till then been examined before him.
Summoning of the three more accused would further delay the matter.
The learned magistrate proceeded with the trial summoning only those accused against whom the charge sheet was submitted.
Some of the accused were teachers and well known persons and they would suffer due to the delay caused by summoning the additional accused.
On a report filed by the appellant on September 1, 2002, a case was registered against 17 persons named as accused in the report.
AFTAB ALAM, J. Heard companynsel for the parties.
Leave granted.
