[Criminal Appeal No. 148 of 2003]. [Criminal Appeal Nos. 865 of 2004, 1334 of 2005 and 537 of 2006]. This matter was initially directed to be heard by a Bench of Three-Judges in view of the conflict of opinion in the decisions of two Two-JudgeBenches, in the cases of Kishori Singh and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others [(2004) 13 SCC 11]; Rajender Prasad Vs. Bashir and Others [(2001) 8SCC 522] and SWIL Limited Vs. State of Delhi and Others [(2001) 6 SCC 670]. When the matter was taken up for consideration by the Three-Judge Bench on1st September, 2004, it was brought to the notice of the court that two other decisions had a direct bearing on the question sought to be determined. The first is the case of Kishun Singh Vs. State of Bihar[(1993) 2 SCC 16], and the other is a decision of a Three-Judge Bench in the case of Ranjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab [(1998) 7 SCC 149]. Ranjit Singh's case disapproved the observations made in Kishun Singh's case, which was to the effect that the Session Court has power under Section 193of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, hereinafter referred to as "the Code", to take cognizance of an offence and summon other persons whose complicity in the commission of the trial could prima facie be gathered from the materials available on record.
↧