Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Daulat Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 July, 2021
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 133/2019
Daulat Ram S/o Laluji Salvi, Aged About 55 Years, Dowad, Ps
Rajnagar, Dist Rajsamand
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Santosh Spouse/o Paras Ram Salvi, Aged About 30 Years,
Village Shishoda Khurd, Ps And Teh Khamnor, Dist
Rajsamand.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Mathur
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mohd. Javed, PP
Mr. Sudhir Saruparia (for the
complainant)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Order
08/07/2021
The petitioner has approached this Court through this
revision petition under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for assailing the order
dated 16.01.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Nathdwara, District Rajsamand in Sessions Case
NO.20/2017 (State Vs. Roop Lal) whereby, the learned trial court
accepted the application filed by the prosecution under Section
319 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel Shri Viveek Mathur representing the
petitioner submits that impugned order is absolutely illegal and
contrary to the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court judgment delivered in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs.
State of Punjab & Ors. reported in (2014) 3 SCC 92. The
learned trial court has placed reliance on the statements of the
(2 of 2) [CRLR-133/2019]
witnesses recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. while
issuing process against the petitioner even though, the fact
remains that trial has commenced. He urges that once the trial is
commenced, the only material on the basis whereof application
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. could have been entertained would be
the sworn testimony of the witnesses. On these submissions, Shri
Viveek Mathur craves acceptance of the instant revision petition.
Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the
respondent-complainant are not in a position to dispute the factual
and legal position as stated by the petitioner's counsel. It is an
admitted position that trial had commenced and four witnesses
had been examined on oath whereafter, the application under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. came to be decided. Keeping in view the
principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in
the case of Hardeep Singh (Supra), the trial court could not
have relied upon the investigational statements of the material
witnesses for issuing process against the left out accused. The trial
court should have rather waited for recording evidence of the
material witnesses and then only the application under Section
319 Cr.P.C., should have been decided.
Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned
order dated 16.01.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Nathdwara, District Rajsamand passed in Sessions Case
No.20/2017 is quashed and set aside. However, the complainant is
given liberty to file a fresh application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in
appropriate circumstances.
(SANDEEP MEHTA),J
36-Mamta/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
