RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA for the State-respondent.

(2.) The present criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 27.6.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 2, Mathura in Sessions Trial No. 412 of 2008 whereby the revisionist has been summoned to face trial under the charged Section on an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

(3.) It is contended by the learned Counsel for the revisionist that although the revisionist was named in the first information report, the Investigating agency found complicity of the revisionist to be false and, therefore, exonerated him and submitted charge sheet against other accused persons, as such, order impugned dated 27.6.2009 be set aside. In support of his contention learned Counsel for the revisionist has relied upon judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka,2004 50 ACC 343 and in the case of Mohd. Shafi v. Mohad. Rafiq and Anr.,2007 58 ACC 254. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in , (Lal Suraj alias Suraj Singh and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand, 2009 2 SCC 696), in support of his contention. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has further relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in,(Ram Singh and Ors. v. Ram Niwas and Anr.,2009 65 ACC 971), in which Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in the event, it appears from the evidence that any person, not being an accused, has committed any offence for which he could be tried together with the accused, the court may proceed against him for the offence which he appears to have committed. It has been further held that as per the provision of Section 319, Cr.P.C. confers an extraordinary power is conferred upon the Court to summon a person who, at the relevant time, was not being tried as an accused, subject, of course, to fulfilment of the condition that it appears to the court that he had committed an offence. A finding to that effect must be premised on the evidence that had been brought on record.