SATENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Sri Jagdeo Singh, learned Counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for Respondent No. 1 on this revision and perused the record. Notice on Respondent No. 2, Satyabir Singh has been served, but none for him has appeared. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2.

(2.) This revision has been filed against order dated 24.5.2001, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bijnore, on an application moved under Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure to summon the revisionist as an accused in Sessions Trial No. 287 of 1999, State v. Nipendra and Ors., pending in the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Bijnore.

(3.) It transpires from the record that Sessions Trial No. 287 of 1999, State v. Nipendra and Ors., under Sections 364, 302 and 201, I.P.C., P.S. Haldor is pending in the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Bijnore, in which Rohtas, Jabar Singh and Satendra Kumar were nominated as accused in the first information report, but the Investigating Officer did not submit charge-sheet against them and during trial the statements of P.W. 1, Satyabir Singh, P.W. 2 Mohan were recorded and both of them named them as accused involved in the said crime. The prosecution moved an application under Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure with prayer to summon accused Rohtas, Jabar Singh and Satendra Kumar to face trial in the said case, aggrieved by which Satendra Kumar filed this revision.