ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revisions have been filed by the revisionists challenging the orders passed under Section 319, Cr. P. C. summoning them to face trial. The common point that has arisen in these cases is whether the Court can summon the accused, against whom no evidence was collected during the investigation, only on the strength of the statement of prosecution witness, who was not cross-examined. In these cases the prosecution witness was examined by the prosecution wherein he disclosed the complicity of the applicant in the crime. The Presiding Officer without giving opportunity to the accused persons, who were already facing trial, to cross-examine the witness summoned the revisionists.

(2.) The learned counsel contended that since the witness was not cross-examined his statement could not be treated as evidence and, therefore, on the basis of uncross-examined testimony the accused could not be summoned. He contended that the Court concerned committed illegality in summoning the applicant.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionists and learned Additional Government Advocate.