HC raps Moga judge for 'casual approach'

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, May 19

Rapping an Additional District and Sessions Judge for prime facie demonstrating clear non-application of judicial mind, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has asked him to explain how a person was summoned as an additional accused in a murder case in a “casual manner”.

Explanation sought

The Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, is directed to submit an explanation as to how the petitioner has been summoned as an additional accused in such a casual manner. — Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan, Punjab and Haryana High Court

Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan asserted the complainant in the case had stated only five names, including those of the petitioner’s sons. But the petitioner’s name was not independently mentioned. Yet, the trial court observed that the petitioner was also named in the complainant’s deposition. Therefore, he was liable to be summoned, along with five other persons, as additional accused.

“The Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, is directed to submit an explanation as to how the petitioner has been summoned as an additional accused in such a casual manner. The Registrar-General of this Court is directed to ensure that the explanation of the Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, is received well before the next date of hearing,” Justice Sangwan added.

The matter was brought to the High Court’s notice after Tarsem Singh filed a petition against the State of Punjab for setting aside the order dated April 21 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, vide which an application filed under Section 319 of the CrPC was allowed and the petitioner was summoned as an additional accused to face trial in an FIR registered on March 26, 2020, for murder under Section 302 of the IPC at Nihal Singh Wala police station in Moga.

The petitioner’s counsel referred to the FIR, wherein the complainant stated that the main accused, in connivance with his companions, committed the murder of his son. He also referred to the complainant’s statement under Section 161 of the CrPC in which similar allegations were made. He added the complainant’s supplementary statement was recorded thereafter, in which he levelled the same allegations without naming the petitioner.

The counsel further told Justice Sangwan’s Bench that the names of the petitioner’s sons were specifically mentioned. But the public prosecutor moved an application under Section 319 of the CrPC seeking the summoning of six additional accused, out of which five persons were named by the complainant in his statement. The petitioner not named by the complainant was also sought to be summoned as an additional accused.

“A perusal of the impugned order passed by the trial court, summoning the six persons, including petitioner herein as additional accused, shows that it has been passed in a very casual manner,” Justice Sangwan added.