PINTOO Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) K. N. Ojha, J. Instant revision has been preferred against order dated 4-8-2005 passed by C. J. M. Bulandshahr in case No. 1234 of 2003, State v. Mahabir & Ors. , whereby the revisionist Pintu and Prempal have been summoned under Section 319 Cr. PC to face trial in crime No. C-2/03 alongwith other accused persons who are already facing trial bearing Case No. 1234/03 under Section 323/324/336/452/504/506 IPC.

(2.) HEARD Sri Gaurav Kakkar learned Counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA and have gone through the record.

(3.) IN the cited case the name of the appellants did not figure upto the statement of 49 witnesses but in this case the role of accused was specifically assigned, since the time the FIR was lodged. IN the cited case complication was of summoning witnesses from different places and examination of Bank record while in this case witnesses Ramesh, Pushpendra, Smt. Neeraj, Rajveer and Virendra are family member of the complainant or of the same Village Kurli, Police Station Gulawti, District Bulandshahr where the family of injured-complainant lives. Both parties are resident of the same Village Kurli. Therefore, these witnesses can be examined even on one or two dates and process is not to be sent to different places. Address is not to be ascertained and records are not to be produced again from different Banks like in the cited case.