Full Judgment
16. 01.2012 Heard Sri V.K. Prasad, who was assisted by Sri Hemant Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Bipin Kumar Sinha, learned standing counsel for C.B.I. The present petition has been filed with a prayer for quashing of the order dated 07.03.2011 passed in Special Case No. 15 of 1994, whereby, the learned Special Judge C.B.I. (South Bihar), Patna, had directed to split up the record of the petitioners case . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Special Judge had committed an error in its order while recording that in this case almost all the witnesses except the I.O. had been examined. It was submitted that out of thirteen (13) witnesses, only six (6) witnesses were examined, but the learned court below has recorded incorrect finding. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., it was mandatory to proceed with joint trial of the accused who was summoned in the present case under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to provision contained in Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. has argued, that in any event, the case of the petitioner was not required to be split up with the accused, who was summoned. 2 In the present case, Sri Bipin Kumar Sinha, learned standing counsel for C.B.I., on instruction, orally informs the court that now in the present case evidence has been closed and the case is fixed for recording statement of the petitioner, who is accused, under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. It was further submitted that it is up to the prosecution to examine the witnesses as per the prosecution case. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. From the impugned order it is evident that by the order dated 07.03.2011 one Dashrath Singh was summoned as accused under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., and by the said order case of Dashrath Singh was directed for split up. The petitioner has challenged the same order. So far Section 319 is concerned, for just decision in the matter it would be appropriate to quote the same, which is as follows:- 319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence. (1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. (2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. (3) Any person attending the Court although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed. (4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1), then (a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and witnesses re-heard; (b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced. 3 In view of aforesaid Section, it is evident that if a person is summoned as accused in a trial he may be tried together with the accused persons who were already facing trial. In any event, the petitioner in whose case evidence has already been concluded, as submitted by learned counsel for C.B.I., the petitioner was not going to be prejudiced by the same order. Section 319 of Cr.P.C. says for joint trial in respect of the person who is directed to be summoned at the stage of trial. From the impugned order it further appears that accused Dashrath Singh has not appeared. Only he was summoned to face the trial. In view of the impugned order, the court is of the opinion that the petitioner in any event will not be prejudiced even though the case of accused Dashrath Singh, who was summoned, was split up. I do not find any material to interfere with the impugned order. The petition stands dismissed. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.) Praful