PRAVEEN KUMAR GARG Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA. There is no need to issue notice to O.P. No. 2. This revision is directed against the order dated 27.7.2010 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Aligarh in Case No. 7636 of 2008, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Gandhi Park, District - Aligarh, whereby the revisionist was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that learned trial court had summoned the revisionist on the ground that there was sufficient evidence against the revisionist. It is submitted that learned trial court has not recorded his satisfaction that there exists a possibility that the accused so summoned, in all likelihood, would be convicted.

(2.) IN Mohd. Shafi v. Mohd. Rafiq and another, 2007 (58) ACC 254, the Apex Court had held that before a Court exercising its discretionary jurisdiction in terms of Section 319 Cr.P.C., it must arrive at the satisfaction that there exists a possibility that the accused so summoned, is in all likelihood, liable to be convicted. In Sarabjit Singh & another v. State of Punjab & another, (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 141, the Apex Court held that for excercising extra ordinary jurisdiction under section 319 Cr.P.C., the Courts are required to apply stringent tests; one of the test being whether evidence on record is such which would reasonably lead to conviction of the person sought to be summoned and mere existence of a prima facie case may not serve the purpose.? Since learned trial court has not recorded his satisfaction as above, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.