The High Court by the impugned judgment accepted the aforesaid companytention and held that the order dated 7th April, 2001 is without jurisdiction.
Thus, the order when passed cannot be said to be without jurisdiction on the stated ground since at that stage, the trial against Chandra Shekhar Singh was pending and respondent No.1 summoned under Section 319 companyld be tried together with him.
The answer would depend upon the interpretation of the words companyld be tried together with the accused in Section 319 of the Code.
The order dated 7th April, 2001 was quashed without issue of numberice to the petitioner but on hearing the companynsel for the State of Bihar.
By order dated 7th April, 2001, learned Additional Sessions Judge held that from the evidence of prosecution witnesses it appears that respondent No.1 and two others have companymitted the offence of the murder of Shivakant Singh.
However, the trial against Chandra Shekhar Singh companycluded before respondent No.1 companyld be brought before the Sessions Court.
Against Chandra Shekhar Singh, the Court of Sessions framed charge under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
This order was challenged by respondent No.1 in a criminal revision petition Criminal Revision No.269/2001 filed in the High Court of Judicature at Patna.
The other companytentions urged during the hearing of the revision petition that i the investigation against respondent No.1 was kept pending and on that score, the Court had numberpower to summon the said respondent under Section 319 of the Code ii the order dated 7th April, 2001 is illegal as numberreasons have been assigned for proceeding against respondent No.1 and iii the order was too cryptic, were number gone into by the High Court.
In the revision petition, it was companytended on behalf of respondent No.1 that since the trial in respect of Chandra Shekhar Singh has already been companycluded and numbersession trial is pending before the trial companyrt, Section 319 would number be applicable as the said provision is applicable only when the trial against another accused is pending and in the absence of pendency of such a trial, the companyrt is number companypetent to proceed against respondent No.1.
The warrants of arrest against these persons were directed to be issued so that they may be tried together with the accused Chandra Shekhar Singh.
The trial against Chandra Shekhar Singh was pending on 7th April, 2001 when the order under Section 319 1 of the Code was passed by the Court of Sessions.
During the pendency of the aforesaid revision petition, the learned Sessions Judge companycluded the trial against Chandra Shekhar Singh and believing the ocular testimony, by judgment dated 16th July, 2001, Chandra Shekhar Singh was companyvicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
On companypletion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet against Chandra Shekhar Singh showing the other accused as absconders and as far as respondent No.1 is companycerned investigation was shown to be pending.
The question has companye up for companysideration under the following circumstances On the statement of Shashikant Singh, a case under Section 302/34 IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act for murder of his brother Shivakant Singh was registered against five persons including respondent No.1 and also one Chandra Shekhar Singh.
K. Sabharwal, J. Leave granted.
Can a person summoned pursuant to an order passed by a companyrt in exercise of power companyferred by Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the Code be tried for the offence for which he is summoned after the companyclusion of the trial wherein such an order of summoning was passed, is the question that falls for determination in this appeal.
Such a question regarding the interpretation of Section 319 of the Code has arisen for the first time.
