RAJ KUMAR Vs. ROHIT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved against the impugned order dated 22.11.2013 passed by learned trial Court, dismissing the application of the petitioner under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short), he approached this Court by way of instant criminal revision petition.

(2.) Notice of motion was issued.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that statements of the witnesses levelling serious allegations against persons sought to be summoned with the aid of Section 319 Cr.P.C., were recorded. However, the learned trial Court has misdirected itself, while passing the impugned order making patently illegal observations contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Constitution Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and ors., 2014 3 SCC 92. He submits that sufficient evidence for conviction was not the requirement for summoning a person as additional accused to face the criminal trial with the aid of Section 319 Cr.P.C. Referring to another observation made by learned trial Court in para 7 of the impugned order, he submits that if some PWs already examined, were to be re-examined again, after summoning the additional accused, that would not be a ground for dismissing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. He prays for setting aside the impugned order, by allowing the present petition.