- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and the learned A.G.A. for the respondent no. 1 and perused the record.
(2.) THIS is an application under section 482 Cr.P.C. against the summoning order passed under section 319 Cr.P.C. It appears that in case crime no. C-16 of 2003, under sections 323, 504, 506, 498- A and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Orai, District Sant Kabir Das Nagar, the applicant's name was disclosed in the F.I.R. The investigating agency did not file any charge sheet against her. During the trial P.W.1 Sudha Singh was examined in support of the prosecution case. She narrated the prosecution story and made statement in regard to the complicity of the applicant. On the basis of that statement, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gyanpur passed the summoning order dated 13.6.2006 in criminal case no. 1462 of 2005, State Vs. Ram Bahal Singh and others, thereby summoned the applicant as an accused. Against the order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, criminal revision no. 90 of 2006 was filed, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Bhadohi on 4.8.2007.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is a very old lady aged about 83 years. No specific role of the applicant has been alleged by P.W.1, Sudha Singh. It was next submitted that when no evidence was found against the applicant during the investigation, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was not justified in passing the summoning order only on the basis of the statement of P.W. 1 Sudha Singh. He should have recorded statements of other witnesses. Moreover, the said witness was not subjected to cross-examination. It was next submitted that neither the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate nor the learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded any specific finding that the statement of P.W. 1 Sudha Singh, if uncontroverted, would be sufficient to record a valid conviction against the applicant. In absence of such finding the summoning order was not proper.;