FIROZ AHMAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred by the revisionists against the order dated 7-3-2009 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge / Fast Track Court No. 1 Azamgarh whereby allowing the application dated 22-10-2008 under section 319 Cr. P. C. moved by the respondent no. 2 and directed to summon the revisionists to face trial alongwith other accused persons.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Sanjay Kumar advocate appearing from the side of opposite party no. 2 and the learned AGA and perused the impugned order and other records. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that initially 8 accused persons were named in the F. IR. assigning weapons to them but the police submitted charge sheet only against 5 accused persons and name of the revisionists were exonerated. It is further submitted that the application under section 173 (8) Cr. P. C. moved by the opposite party no. 2 for reinvestigation was rejected by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-II Azamgarh and the respondent no. 2 preferred revision which was also dismissed by the Addl. Sessions Judge Court No. 7, Azamgarh on 17-7-2006. When the trial court proceeded and evidence of PWs. were recorded then respondents moved an application under section 319 Cr. P. C. for summoning the revisionists which has been allowed by the impugned order and there was no evidence against the revisionists and even in the statement recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. there was no allegation against the revisionists. Learned counsel for the revisionists has cited rulings given in Kailash vs. State of Rajasthan [2008 (63) ACC 194], Mohd. Shafi vs. Mohd. Rafiq and another [2007 (58) ACC 254] and Krishnappa vs. State of Karnataka [2004 (50 ACC 343].

(3.) LEARNED AGA contended that there was ample evidence before the court and on the basis of which application under section 319 Cr. P. C. has been allowed by the court and the revisionists were summoned to face trial alongwith other co-accused. Merely because no fire arm injury has been caused, there was no occasion to reject the application under section 319 Cr. P. C. Under section 319 Cr. P. C. power has been given to the court that during the course of enquiry or trial, if it appears from the evidence that any person, not being accused, has committed any offence for which such person should be tried together with the accused, the court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. In Hardeep Singh and others vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 2009 SC 483 the Apex Court has held that the word 'evidence' used is comprehensive and broad sense. The court has also considered ruling given in Joginder Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in 1979 SCC 345. It is undisputed fact that the respondent no. 2 has moved an application under section 319 Cr. P. C. when he has examined himself.