- (1.) The present revision is moved to seek interference of court in the impugned order dated 31.7.2019 on the ground of illegality, irregularity and arbitrariness committed by the Trial Judge in S.T No.467/2016, Crime Case No. 299/2016 registered under Sections 147 , 148 , 149 , 504 , 506 , 307 and 302 I.P.C. in Police Station-Jamo, District Amethi (State of U.P. Vs. Shivendra Pratap Singh and Anr.) allowing the application of informant of the case under Section 319 Cr.P.C. By the said order the revisionist, proposed accused is summoned for trial along with the other named accused in the First Information Report of the incidence and charge-sheeted by the police after investigation.
(2.) Heard learned counsel Sri S.P. Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of the revisionist (the proposed accused), learned counsel Sri S.K. Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of the complainant and for prosecution, learned A.G.A Sri Abhay Kumar, Advocate.
(3.) The crux of the argument delivered by learned counsel Sri S.P. Singh are that- i. The presence of accused at the spot of the crime is not established satisfactorily by cogent and material evidence before the court. ii. Though, the name of accused was given in FIR but so far as the materials and evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during the investigation, there is no evidence on record against the revisionist to show him committing any offence. iii. The Investigating Officer dropped the name of revisionist and submitted the charge sheet to the Magistrate for cognizance of offence against remaining accused persons named in the FIR. iv. That even the evidence recorded by the court is also not satisfactory and sufficient to establish the presence of the accused on the spot of the crime when it was committed. ;