Shri Kant Tripathi, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G. A. for the respondent No. 1 and perused the record.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist No1 informed that revisionist No. 1 has died. His wife has been served notice but none is present on her behalf. It appears that in ST. No. 61/95 (State v. Anoop Singh and others), the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut has summoned the revisionist for trial under Sections 147,302 and 201 I.P.C. The summoning order has been passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The revisionist No. 1 Anoop Singh and revisionist No. 3 Lokendra are alleged to have died. It may not be out of context to mention that at the stage of charge, learned Additional Sessions Judge found no sufficient material and, accordingly, discharged the revisionists. After the discharge of the revisionists, the trial Court proceeded against co-accused Dharamveer. Against whom, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses. The evidence of P.W.1, Ramesh, was that he had seen the revisionist No. 1, Anoop Singh, and Lokendra on a Boggie (Cart). Later on he got information that the deceased had been killed. The other evidence against the revisionists was that the co-accused Dharamveer pleaded his guilt before the police and the dead bodies of the deceased were recovered by the police on his pointing. There is no other evidence against the revisionists. The summoning order appears to have been passed on the basis of the aforesaid evidence.
(3.) IT is well settled that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly in exceptional matters where the prosecution evidence, if uncontroverted, would reasonably lead to conviction of the person sought to be summoned. In the case of Sarabjit Singh and another v. State of Punjab and another, 2009 (66) ACC 32 (SC), the Apex Court held that indisputably, before an additional accused can be summoned for standing trial, the nature of the evidence should be such which would make out grounds for exercise of extraordinary power. The materials brought before the Court must also be such which would satisfy the Court that it is one of those cases where its jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly. The Apex Court further observed that an order under Section 319 CrPC, therefore, should not be passed only because the first informant or one of the witnesses seeks to implicate other person. Sufficient and cogent reasons are required to be assigned by the Court so as to satisfy the ingredients of the provisions. Mere ipse dixit would not serve the purpose. Such an evidence must be convincing one at least for the purpose of exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction. After making these observations, the Apex Court further held that the Courts are required to apply stringent tests; one of the tests being whether evidence on record is such which would reasonably lead to conviction of the person sought to be summoned.;