AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.M. Punchhi, J.
The petitioners were summoned as added accused to face a trial which was in progress before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani. It appears that the learned Judge was prompted to summon the petitioners after recording examinationinchief of Suresh Kumar Aggarwal petitioner No. 1. In a number of Single Bench decisions, one of which is Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab, Criminal Misc. No. 5968M of 1985, decided on 8th April, 1986 by me the view taken is that the Court can summon an accused person only after complete statement of a witness has been recorded, that is to say, not only his examinationinchief but also his crossexamination, if any, done by the accused already standing trial before it. Even after recording the complete statement of a witness, if the Court is of the opinion that accused facing trial before it should be summoned to face trial, then the Court''s order to summon the accused should not be just casual but should reflect application of mind. With these observations, this petition is allowed at the motion stage, quashing the impugned orders Annexure P2 and P4 leaving it open to the learned Judge to complete the statement of Suresh Kumar Aggarwal P.W. and thereafter to apply his mind in this regard. Petition decided accordingly.
JUDGMENT accordingly.