RAM KEWAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMAR Saran, J. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and the learned A. G. A.

(2.) AN (order dated 2. 12. 2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F. T. C. 1, Mau, in S. T. No. 179 of 2002 has been chal lenged by means of this application whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge F. T. C. 1, Mau allowed the applica tion of the informant Virendra Pratap un der section 319 Cr. P. C. after his examination-in-chief and summoned the applicants in a case under sections 302, 147, 148, 149 IPC.

(3.) NO doubt, learned Counsel for the applicants contended that as the informant is not an eye-witness and that one of the injured witnesses Premshila has not named the applicants Ram Kewal Singh, Vijay, Amar Jeet and Shashi Kant, on that basis the Investigating Officer submitted a final report. However, I find that in the 161 Cr. P. C. statement of another injured wit ness Rajesh the applicants were clearly named, but I am only alluding to this fact because learned Counsel for the applicants had submitted that no injured had named the applicants in the 161 Cr. P. C. statement, Although such facts are not of much conse quence as statements of the witnesses under section 161 Cr. P. C. cannot form the material for summoning an accused under section 319 Cr. P. C. but order for the same has to be passed on the basis of evidence recorded in Court.