Result of U.P. Higher Judicial Service (Main Written) Examination, 2014 Direct Recruitment to U.P. Higher Judicial Service held on 14th, 15th and 16th November, 2014 has been declared. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur notified Advertisement for recruitment additional district judges through M.P. Higher Judicial Service (Entry Level) Direct Recruitment for BAR, Exam 2015 Haryana Judicial Services Examination 2014-Pre is conducted on 10th of Jan 2015. The result is awaited. THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI will hold examination for direct recruitment against 14 vacancies to Delhi Higher Judicial Service on Sunday, the 06th April,2014-Last Date 06.02.2014 13/11/2013: While renewing the term of the appointment of the existing incumbents the State Government is required to consider their past performance and conduct in the light of the recommendations made by the District Judges and the District Magistrates. Therefore, the High Court could not have issued a Mandamus for renewal of the term of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and other similarly situated persons and thereby frustrated the provisions of LR Manual and Section 24 Cr.P.C .- SUPREME COURT.
HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT
Go Back to High Court Judgements
  Date 3/8/2011 12:00:00 AM
  Court Allahabad High Court
  Parties Ajay Versus State of U.P.
  Appeal Criminal Appeal - CRIMINAL REVISION 1440 OF 2011
  Act SC/ST ACT -
  Judgement
  Hon`ble Vinod Prasad, J. Learned counsel for the revisionist is permitted to add ground which now is being canvassed in this revision. As prayed jointly by both the sides, this revision is finally heard at the admission stage itself. Revisionist Ajay is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11.2.2011 passed by Special/Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-I, Saharanpur in Special Session Trial No.374 of 2008 under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 324, 294, 504 I.P.C. and 3 (1) (X) SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Saharanpur. By the impugned order, the revisionist is directed to be summoned by the trial Judge wielding powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and 21.2.2011 was fixed for the said purpose. The impugned order has been passed while judgmenting S.S.T. No.374 of 2008 State Vs. Navneet and others relating to the aforesaid offences and Crime No.551 of 2006, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Saharanpur. I have heard Sri Raghuraj Kishore learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Pantanjali Mishra learned A.G.A. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that power under Section 319 Cr.P.C, as the enacted statute ordains, can be exercised only during pendency of the trial. If the trial is concluded, no power under the aforesaid section can be wielded/utilized by the trial Judge. He submits that after the date when judgment was delivered, the court became functus officio and, therefore, the court could not have fixed a future date to exercise power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In view of the above, the impugned order cannot be sustained and deserves to be rectified. Learned A.G.A. also could not defend the impugned order as in his opinion, the impugned order against the revisionist cannot be countenanced. I have perused the impugned judgement and order. While judgmenting S.S.T. No.374 of 2008 State Vs. Navneet and others for the aforementioned offences, the trial Judge convicted all the accused persons for charges under Sections 294, 147, 148, 452, 323/149, 324/149, 504 I.P.C. and 3 (1) (X) SC/ST Act. While sentencing the aforesaid accused persons for the aforesaid offences, the trial Judge directed that record in respect of the revisionist Ajay be separated and for issuing process, 21.2.2011 was fixed. This order was passed on 11.2.2011. As the record reveals that on 11.2.2011, the trial Judge judgmented the aforesaid Special Session Trial, therefore, after judgmenting the case, the trial Judge became functus officio. He could not have taken any proceedings in respect of other person wielding power under section 319 Cr.P.C, which could have been utilized only during commencement of the trial. After conclusion of the case, no court can utilize power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and start afresh trial in respect of separate accused. Phraseology of Section 319 Cr.P.C. further indicates that power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be utilized to add any person as an accused who is not already facing trial, only during pendency of the inquiry or trial. That section further ordains that in the event the trial Judge harbingers intention to add any accused, he should have stayed the trial and take up trial in respect of newly added accused simultaneously including examination of the witnesses afresh. To clarify, Section 319 Cr.P.C. is reproduced hereinbelow; "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 requires, 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 the 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." Besides, preceeding observation, the aforesaid section further indicates that only that person who could have been or ought to have been tried along with already being tried accused, can be arrayed as an accused and can be asked to stand the trial. That is not the case here. In this revision, the revisionist was not summoned on or before 11.2.2011 when the trial Judge became functus officio by judgmenting the aforesaid Special Session Trial. In view of the above, the impugned order against the revisionist cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Hence, the impugned order dated 11.2.2011 passed by Special/Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No.1, Saharanpur, in S.S.T. No. 374 of 2008, separating the record and directing the case to be put up on 21.2.2011 for issuing processes against the revisionist is set aside. The instant revision is allowed. Dated:.8.3.2011