KAILASH PRAKASH Vs. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) K. N. Sinha, J. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner Kailash Prakash has sought the quashing of order dated 12-4-2006 passed in Criminal Revision No. 271 of 2006 (Annexure No. 7) and order dated 10-2-2006 passed in Case No. 1131 of 2004 (Annexure No. 5) by which the application of the petitioner filed under Section 319 Cr. P. C. was rejected by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad. The revision against the said order was summarily rejected at the admission stage.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on the report of the petitioner a case crime No. 441/2000 was registered under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506 and 307 IPC, in which twelve persons were named as accused and five were not named. After the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against four persons. THE Trial Court examined petitioner Kailash Prakash, the complainant, as PW-1, who named all the persons in the F. I. R. THEreafter the petitioner moved an application under Section 319 Cr. P. C. to summon all the accused for trial. THE said application was rejected and revision against the same was also dismissed.

(3.) THIS Court, in a Division Bench decision Ram Gopal & Anr. v. State of U. P. , 2000 (1) JIC 145 (All) : 1999 (1) ACR 274) has interpreted the term 'evidence' used in Section 319 Cr. P. C. The term 'evidence' as used in Section 319, Cr. P. C, does not mean an 'evidence' complete by cross-examination and the Court can take action under Section 319, Cr. P. C. even on the statement made in examination-in-chief of one or more witnesses. THIS Division Bench decision of this Court was examined by Hon'ble the Apex Court, in Rakesh & Anr. v. State of Haryana, 2001 (2) JIC 757 (SC) : 2001 (2) ACR 1609 (SC ). The Apex Court after examining the authorities on the subject came to the conclusion that 'evidence' as used in Section 319, Cr. P. C. would mean the uncross-examined stage of witness. It appears that not only the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-l Allahabad but the Revisional Court also is quite ignorant of the legal position, hence rejected the application on the ground that no other eye-witness has been examined.