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 5/2/2009 11:10:00 AM
  Court
  Parties
  Appeal -
  Act -
  Judgement
  HIGH COURT ALLAHABAD : Criminal Misc. Application No. 11710 of 1993 , Birendra Shukla vs. State of U.P.,: Hon. Vijay Kumar Verma, J. : Juggement dated 24/9/2009-...... By means of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, order dated 8.7.1993, passed by Ixth Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar in S.T. NO. 748/1992 (State Vs. Raj Kumar Tewari and others) under Section 302/34 I.P.C. P.S. Sachendi, Kanpur Nagar, has been challenged. 2. By the impugned order, notice has been issued by the court below to the applicant to appear and show cause as to why he should not be tried. 3. From the record it transpires that an F.I.R. was lodged by Shri Virendra Singh alias Chhote Singh S/o Shri Brij Narayan Singh, resident of Gairampur, Police Station Sachendi Kanpur Nagar on 5.4.1992. According to that F.I.R., a case under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 I.P.C. was registered at P.S. Sachendi, Kanpur Nagar against Raj Kumar Tewari alias Kallu Tewari, Rajan Tewari, Shiv Bihari Tewari, Kapil Dev and Birendra Shukla (applicant herein). After investigation, charge- sheet was not submitted against the applicant, as he was not found involved in the incident, which was said to have occurred on 5.4.1992 at about 7.00 p.m. The accused persons against whom charge-sheet was submitted were summoned to face the trial. On the case being committed to the court of session for trial, S.T. NO. 748/1992 was registered. During the course of trial, an application was moved on behalf of the prosecution to summon Birendra Shukla also to face the trial. On the basis of that application, impugned order was passed by the court below on 8.7.1993, whereby notice was issued to the applicant to appear on 29.7.1993 and show cause as to why he should not be tried along with other accused persons. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the applicant has come to this court in this proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. When the case was taken up in the revised list, Shri Vineet Singh Sengar, counsel for the complainant Shri Virendra Singh alias Chhote Singh did not come. Hence I heard argument of Sri L.M. Singh learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 5. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no provision in Cr.P.C. to issue notice prior to passing the summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and hence the impugned order, being wholly illegal, should be set aside. It was also submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that court below did not apply its mind to the facts of the case and merely on making prayer by the Government counsel, impugned order was passed. 6. Learned A.G.A. also could not support the impugned order. 7. Having gone through the impugned order carefully, I find force in aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant. The impugned order appears to have been passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C., which reads thus:- "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." 8. As would appear from Section 319 Cr.P.C., if in the course of any enquiry into or trial of any offence, it appears to the court that from the evidence any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person should be tried together with the accused who are facing trial, the court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. There is no provision in Section 319 or any other section of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which empowers the court to issue notice to proposed accused before passing the summoning order. The prospective accused has no right to participate in the proceedings prior to passing the summoning order and he is not required to show cause as to why summoning order be not passed against him. The prospective accused comes in picture after he has been summoned to face the trial after taking cognizance on the charge-sheet, or passing order under Section 204 or 319 Cr.P.C. The prospective accused has no right to oppose the summoning order. Therefore, in present case also, the court below was not empowered to issue notice to the applicant to appear and show cause as to why he should not be tried with other accused. If there was evidence showing the involvement of the applicant in the alleged incident, then the court below ought to have passed summoning order to summon the applicant to face the trial, but prior to passing the summoning order, there is no provision in Cr.P.C. or any other statute to issue notice to the prospective accused to appear and show cause against the proposed summoning order. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the court below being wholly illegal deserves to be set aside. 9. Consequently, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and impugned order dated 8.7.1993 is set aside. If S.T. NO. 748/1992 is still pending, then the court below may pass fresh order in accordance with law to summon the applicant, if from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, his prima facie involvement in the alleged incident is established. The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the lower court concerned for further necessary.