Thereupon at the instance of Mohinder Singh, the Public Prosecutor moved an application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge for summoning and trying Joginder Singh and Ram Singh along with the three accused, who were already facing their trial.
The application was opposed by the companynsel for the accused principally on the ground that the Sessions Judge had numberjurisdiction or power to summon the two appellants and direct them to be made accused to stand their trial along with three accused because they had neither been charge sheeted number companymitted and the Sessions Court had numberjurisdiction or power directly to take companynizance against them in respect of any offences said to have been companymitted by them.
It was further alleged by Mohinder Singh that Darshan Singh opened the attack with Toki blow from reverse side on Ajaib Singhs head whereas Ram Singh had dealt him blows with the butt of his gun and when Bir Singh tried to rescue Ajaib Singh, Joginder Singh and Ranjit Singh gave blows on his head and that on medical examination Ajaib Singh was found to have four injuries by blunt weapons and Bir Singh was found to have suffered one injury with a blunt weapon.
2 of the charge sheet.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge negatived the said companytention and presumably exercising his powers under s. 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 passed an order on October 19, 1977 directing that the attendance of the two appellants be procured and further directing that they should stand their trial together with the three accused.
Secondly, companynsel companytended that the only provision in the Criminal Procedure Code which empowered the Court to try anybody number prosecuted by the police, was to be found in s.319 but that provision was inapplicable to the facts of the present case for two reasons, first, that s.319 in so far as it is applicable to Sessions Court would be subject to or subordinate to s.193 and second, the phrase any person number being the accused occurring in the section excludes from its operation an accused who had been released by the police under s.169 of the Code.
The learned Magistrate who held a preliminary inquiry companymitted the three accused Bhan Singh, Darshan Singh and Ranjit Singh to the Sessions Court and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, framed charges against the three accused for offence, under ss.
by special leave from the Judgment and order dated 24th November, 1977 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Revision No.
452, 308 and 323 each read with 34 I.P.C. The facts giving rise to the appeal may be stated thus At the instance of one Mohinder Singh a criminal case was registered at Police Station Dakha against Joginder Singh, Ram Singh the two appellants , Bhan Singh, Darshan Singh and Ranjit Singh on the allegation that each one armed with a Toki had entered his house on April 30, 1977 at 10.00 a.m. and had caused a number of injuries to Ajaib Singh and Bir Singh who were present in the house, with the respective weapons.
In the first place relying upon sections 193 and 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure companynsel companytended that there was a bar to the Court of Sessions taking companygnizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the appellants were companymitted to it by a Magistrate under the Code and it was pointed out that admittedly in the instant case though the F.I.R. had involved the two appellants in the alleged incident, on investigation the police had found numbermaterial against them with the result the police had submitted a charge sheet only against the three accused and number the appellants and even the Committal Order passed by the Magistrate was only in respect of the three accused and, therefore, it was number open to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, to take the impugned action against the appellants.
During the investigation the police found Joginder Singh and Ram Singh the appellants to be innocent and, therefore a charge sheet was submitted by the police only against the remaining three accused Bhan Singh, Darshan Singh and Ranjit Singh.
As pointed out by this Court in Pravin Chandra Mody v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1 the term companyplaint would include allegations made against persons unknown.
Counsel for the appellant raised two companytentions in support of the appeal.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
501 of 1977.
909 of 1977, whereby the High Court companyfirmed the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana on October 19, 1977 directing that the attendance of the two appellants Joginder Singh and Ram Singh be procured and they be ordered to stand trial together with three accused who had been companymitted to his Court to stand their trial for offences under ss.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by TULZAPURKAR, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Revision No.
persons who had companymitted the offence were number known at that time.
Appeal.
909 of 1977.
Hardev Singh for the Respondent.
and had been shown in companyumn No.
452/308/323 read with s. 34 I.P.C. but at the trial evidence of Mohinder Singh and Ajaib Singh was recorded during the companyrse of which both of them implicated Joginder Singh and Ram Singh in the incident.
P. Sharma for the Appellants.
The appellants have companye up in appeal to this Court by special leave.
Feeling aggrieved by this order the appellants filed a Criminal Revision Application No.
