ANEETA Vs. STATE OF U P AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

(2.) The revisionist Smt. Aneeta has preferred this revision against the order dated 27.7.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Badaun in S.T. No. 583 of 2007, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has summoned the revisionist under Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure to face trial for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34, I.P.C. alongwith other accused.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the impugned order is based on the statement of P.W. 1 Ramesh Chandra who was examined during the trial but was not cross-examined. The learned Additional Sessions Judge placing reliance on the statement of P.W. 1 Ramesh Chandra recorded during the examination-in-chief, has passed the impugned order. It was further submitted that the summoning order could be passed under Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure only after cross-examination of the witnesses. In this connection, the learned Counsel for the revisionist placed reliance on Mohd. Shafi v. Mohd. Rafiq and Anr., 2007 2 AllCriR 2268 . In that case the Apex Court has held that before a Court exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in terms of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it must arrive at the satisfaction that there exists a possibility that the accused so summoned is in all likelihood would be convicted. Such satisfaction can be arrived at inter alia upon completion of the cross-examination of the witness. For the said purpose, the Court concerned may also like to consider other evidence.