ALEEM KHAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. A. Khan, J. Heard parties coun sel, and I have gone myself through the impugned judgment and order dated 7-5- 1997 passed by the learned Additional Ses sions Judge, Faizabad is illegal and it is perverse on the face of it. The statement of the witness was recorded by the trial Court and thereafter an application was moved that there is also involvement of one Suhel Khan, the respondent No. 2 in the commis sion of the crime and therefore, the aforesaid accused be summoned. Learned lower Court adjourned that request on the ground that a final report has already been received against him. Simply because a final report was received against the accused Suhel Khan, that does not debar the Court from taking cognizance in exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr. RC. The statement of witness made by him, on oath before the Court clearly reveals that Suhel Khan was involved in the commission of the crime and, therefore, the lower Court should have exer cised its discretionary powers of summoning the accused Suhel Khan under Section 319 Cr. RC. The aforesaid order passed by the trial Court thereby rejecting the prosecution is bad in law and is set aside. The case is sent back to the lower Court with a direction that it shall pass a suitable order in the matter after hearing the parties counsel and it shall be decided accordingly.

(2.) WITH the above observations the revision is dispose of. Revision disposed of. .