S.K.AGARWAL, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. I have also perused the order of the trial Court summoning the applicants under Section 319, Cr. P.C. This summon­ing was made by the trial Court under Section 307, I.P.C. after recording state­ment of two of the eyewitnesses as well as the Medical Officer. In the opinion of the trial Court the evidence was sufficient enough to warrant the summoning of these applicants to stand their trial. On merit I do not find any illegality in the order of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Mainpuri.
(2.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the applicants is that initially a charge-sheet was submitted only against principal accused, Girish. These ap­plicants were attributed only the role of exhortation and firing without causing any injury upon the victim of the incident. The final report was accepted by the Judicial Magistrate concerned despite presence of a protest petition, the protest petition too was rejected. Therefore, the provision of Section 319, Cr. P.C. will not be attracted against the applicants. So far as acceptance of a final report and rejection of the protest petition are concerned, it could not stand better than a discharge. A discharged accused can be summoned by the Court to stand his trial if the evidence recorded in the Court so warrants.
(3.) IN the result, I do not find any merit in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the applicants before me. Ac­cordingly, the revision fails and is rejected. Revision dismissed.;