KANT TRIPATHI, J. - (1.) WITH the consent of the learned counsel for the revisionist this revision is disposed of at the stage of admission.
(2.) HEARD Sri C.P. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the respondent no. 1 and perused the record. This is a revision against the order dated 15.3.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Mathura in S.T. No. 262 of 1997, State vs. Ram Veer and others whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has summoned the revisionist under section 319 Cr.P.C. for trial in respect of the offence under section 302/34 I.P.C.
(3.) DURING the trial, the prosecution examined P.W. 1, Munish Kumar (complainant ) and the summoning order has been passed on the basis of the statement of this witness. Sri Upadhyay submitted that the revisionist was in jail on the date of occurrence and therefore his presence at the time of occurrence was false. Therefore, the summoning order has been passed without application of mind to the facts of the case. The sole statement of the complainant, Munish Kumar, who has a long enmity with the revisionist, was not sufficient to summon the revisionist. The learned Additional Sessions Judge should have examined other witnesses of the case before passing the summoning order. It was further submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge nowhere arrived at the conclusion that the evidence of P.W. 1, Munish Kumar, if uncontroverted would reasonably lead to the conviction of the revisionist. In absence of any finding in this regard, the summoning order is bad.;