PATI RAM SHEKHAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I. S. Mathur, J. Heard. The revisionist is aggrieved against the order dated 6-10-1994 summoning him under Section 319, Cr. P. C. in Sessions Trial No. 119 of 1993-State of U. P. v. Salet and others.

(2.) IT appears that initially the revisionist was not committed to the Court of Session but after the statement of the prosecutrix PW 1, Smt. Meenakshi was recorded an application was moved before the concerned court for summoning him under Section 319, Cr. P. C. On that application and in view of the statement made by the prosecutrix the Sessions Court has sum moned the revisionist.

(3.) LEARNED counsel also refers to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and others, AIR 1983 SC 67 to the offset that the power under Section 319, Cr. P. C. is an extraordinary power which is conferred on the court and should be exercised very sparingly for taking cognizance against the other accused against whom cognizance has not been taken. The instant case is under Section 376, I. P. C. and the prosecutrix has stated in her statement that rape was committed by the revisionist also. It is difficult to imagine a more compelling circumstances. Accordingly this observation also cannot be said to be of any help to the revisionist.