SUMIT Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision has been preferred against the order dated 27.5.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Pilibhit in S.T. No. 178 of 2015 (State Vs. Adarsh Kumar and others) whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge while allowing the application moved by the prosecution under Sec. 319 Crimial P.C. has summoned the revisionists to face trial under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C. along with other co-accused persons.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionists as well as learned A.G.A. on the point of admission and perused the record.

(3.) The submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist are that the court below has summoned the revisionists in a routine manner without application of its judicial mind. It has been next contended that the court below has not considered that there was no clinching and cogent evidence against the revisionists and only an observation that the revisionists have been found involved in the occurrence is not at all sufficient to invoke the extra ordinary power conferred under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the Apex Court in a catena of judgments has repeatedly held that the summoning under Sec. 319 Crimial P.C. stands on a different footing and it should be dealt with the higher standards by the courts, sparingly and only if, compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against the person other than accused.