AMRESH SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TEJ Shankar Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been summoned by the impugned order dated 6.1.1999 under section 193 CrPC on the basis of material already on record. He urged that the order is against the law and amounts to miscarriage of justice. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon a decision reported in 1998 Supreme Court Cases Cri. 1554 (Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab). Learned counsel urged that in view of this authority the Court cannot summon any person not already arrayed u/s 319 CrPC on the material placed before the committal Court during the investigation and trial. In this case authority of Supreme Court over -ruled Kishan Singh v. State of Bihar reported in (1993) 2 SCC 16 = 1993 SCC (Cri) 470 where the Court had taken the view that the power of Sessions Court u/s 193 CrPC to take cognizance of offence would include the summoning of the person or persons whose complicity in the commission of the crime can prima facie be gathered from the material available on record. Learned counsel for the State has not been able to show any authority to the contrary.