SURSATI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KRISHNA Kumar, J. This revision has been filed against the order dated 23-1-2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur whereby he summoned the revisionists under Section 319, Cr. P. C. The Court recorded the statement of P. W. 1. Ikri and, thereafter also recorded the statement of two witnesses as C. W. 2 and C. W. 3.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the revisionists contended that the witnesses are interested and there are many inde pendent witnesses in this case. It is clear that the learned lower Court not only ex amined the witnesses produced by the prosecution but also examined two other witnesses summoned by the Court itself. The learned lower Court also discussed in detail the evidence. The contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionists is that there were many other independent wit nesses to be examined before the Court prior to summoning of the revisionists is not convincing. If the learned lower Court is convinced on the basis of the witness, already examined that a prima facie case is made out, it is not necessary for the Court to summon all the other witnesses for evidence before the summoning the other accused persons. The carbon copy of the statement has been filed and it is clear that the witnesses were fully cross-examined. Again there is no force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionists and the evidence of witness was not con cluded. The learned Counsel for the revisionists also placed reliance upon 2000 (2) J. I. C. page 5 (SC ). However, in that case 49 witnesses have already been ex amined and three witnesses were to be further examined and therefore, the order was set aside while in this case so many other witnesses are to be examined and the revisionists have been examined on the initial stage of the proceedings.