RAM KHILAWAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. R. Bhargava, J. This revision is directed against summoning order passed by Special Judge (D. A. A.) Agra in Complaint Case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 395, 323, 325, I. P. C. The impugned order shows that there was evidence before the Special Judge about assault and looting of property. How much evidence or what type of evidence could be sufficient for summoning the accused of a complaint case is a matter of discre tion of the lower Court. Revisional Court cannot interfere with this revision has no force.

(2.) I had the opportunity of hearing learned Counsel for the Opposite Party. He contends that the component has no intention of harassing the revisionists. Complainant wants that the revisionist should appear before the Court and face trial. If they are found guilty, they would be sent to jail. Otherwise also for complaint case, there are provisions of Section 88, Cr. P. C. Hence I reject the revision with clear directions to the Special Judge concerned that on the appearance of the revisionists they may not be taken into custody but should be required to furnish bonds with or without sureties according to Section 88, Cr. P. C. Stay granted in the revision is vacted. Revisionists may appear before the Special Judge concerned voluntarily within a month. It is further clarified that Sec tion 88, Cr. P. C. applies only when the accused of the complaint case appear before the Court. Appeal Dismissed. .