Bangarayya Vs State
of Karnataka & Ors.
AFTAB ALAM, J.
counsel for the parties.
a report filed by the appellant on September 1, 2002, a case was registered against
17 persons named as accused in the report. 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
nos. 2, 3 & 6. The learned magistrate proceeded with the trial summoning
only those accused against whom the charge sheet was submitted. 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 nos.2, 3 & 6 (respondent nos.2-4 herein), against whom the police had
not submitted the charge sheet, among the offenders. 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. The
magistrate by a brief order passed on August 18, 2009, rejected the
application. He took the view that the two witnesses were related to the complainant
and no independent witness had till then been examined before him. He further
observed that it was an old case in which the accused had been appearing in
court from 2003. Summoning of the three more accused would further delay the matter.
Some of the accused were "teachers and well known persons" and they
would suffer due to the delay caused by summoning the additional accused.
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. The High Court declined to interfere in the matter because
the petition for summoning the three respondents as accused was made after long
are unable to see where the delay was. As noted above, the two prosecution
witnesses were examined on August 24, 2007 and February 2, 2008 respectively
and the petition under section 319 of the Code was filed March 6, 2008, i.e. a
month and four days after the second witness was examined. In those facts it is
quite unreasonable to hold that the application was made after long delay and
was, therefore, liable to be rejected.
reason assigned by the trial court is equally untenable. The two witnesses
being related to the complainant or the accused already before the court, being
"teachers and well known persons" can be no ground to reject the petition
under section 319 of the Code for summoning some other persons as well for
facing the trial.
are, therefore, constrained to interfere in the matter. The orders passed by
the High Court and the magistrate are set aside and the matter is remitted to
the magistrate to consider the petition under section 319 of the Code afresh
and pass an appropriate order on it, in accordance with law.
the result the appeal is allowed but with no order as to costs.