- (1.) P. K. Jain, J. Heard Sri G. P. Dikshit, learned counsel for the revisionists.
(2.) AN application under Section 319 Cr. P. C. was moved before the trial Court. That application was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Aligarh. How ever, the complainant approached this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 83 of 2000 and this Court passed the order dated 19. 5. 2000 observing as follows: "the perusal of their statements show the implication of these three accused in the crime. Therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has erred in rejecting the application. " In the operative portion, the Court directed that the learned Sessions Judge will reconsider the application of the ap plicant under Section 319 Cr. P. C. and shall pass appropriate order in the light of the observations made above. The learned Ad ditional Sessions Judge consequently passed the impugned order dated 15-9-2000 summoning the revisionists. Learned counsel for the revisionists pointed out certain discrepan cies in the statements of P. W. 2 and has submitted that only one of the revisionists appeared to have participated by firing at P. W. 2. It is also the statement of P. W. 1 that the these accused were seen by him assault ing his son and no discrepancy was pointed out in his statement. The question whether and how much of the statement of the witnesses shall be believed or disbelieved by the trial Court, cannot be dealt with here in this revision. The learned Addi tional Sessions Judge has complied with the order passed by the High Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 83 of 2000. Therefore, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
(3.) THE revision is devoid of any merits and if hereby dismissed. Revision dismissed. .;