RAM PHER Vs. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) K. N. Sinha, J. The present writ petition has been filed for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 4- 10- 2002 passed by Respondent No. 2 and the order dated 7-2-2003 passed by respondent No. 1.

(2.) THE brief facts are that the respondent No. 3 lodged a report against the petitioners at the police station Holagarh, which was registered as case crime No. 73 of 1996. After the investigation charge- sheet was submitted against the husband of respondent No. 4 and the present petitioners were not found involved in the case. After the charge-sheet was filed, the statement of witness was recorded and on the application under Section 319 Cr. P. C. the Magistrate summoned the petitioners as accused. A revision was filed before the Sessions Judge but the same was dismissed for want of appearance by the petitioners.

(3.) IT is also argued that the examination-in-chief was recorded but the Court passed the order without any cross-examination. IT is also settled in the case of Shiv Narain and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2002 (2) JIC 774 (All) : 2000 (3) Crimese 152, that the term 'evidence' as used in Section 319 Cr. P. C. does not mean 'evidence' complete by cross-examination and Court can take action under Section 319 Cr. P. C. on statement made in examination-in-chief of one or more witnesses. However, this controversy was earlier settled at rest by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Gopal v. State of U. P. , 1999 (38) ACC 123, wherein it was held that the Court has power to summon any person as an accused on uncross-examined testimony of a witness.