VIJAY KUMAR DIXIT Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMAR Saran, J. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A. G. A.

(2.) AN order dated 7. 9. 2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge F. T. C. Court No. 5, Deoria in ST. No. 138 of 2005, State v. Gauri Shankar and othors, rejecting the application of the revisionist under Section 319, Cr. P. C. has boen challenged by means of this application.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the revisionist, however, has drawn my attention to the statement of P. W. 4 Smt. Narayani Devi. On perusal of the said statement, I find that she has made omnibus allegations of assault by all the accused per sons. She has stated that she had fainted and remained unconscious for 1- 1 2 hours and even her son Vinod had fainted. I do, not thmk that the same improves the matter any further for justifying a fresh order for summoning the opposite parties No. 2 to 4 also. If the application under Section 319, Cr. P. C. is allowed at this stage, it will require recall of all the witnesses afresh and that will result in unnecessary delay in the disposal of the trial. There is, therefore, no illegality in the impugned order " The application is reiected. .