- (1.) HEARD Sri H. K. Sharma for the applicants in revision, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Sanjay Kumar for the complainant opposite party No. 3.
(2.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 12-2-2001 passed by VII Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Session Trial No. 166/99 State v. Ram Chandra whereby the application of complainant moved under S. 319, CrPC has been allowed and the applicant has been summoned as accused in addition to the accused who is already facing trial. Learned counsel for the complainant has filed certified copy of the order sheet of the aforesaid trial. Along with the memo of revision the applicant has also filed certified copy of the application moved by complainant purporting to be under S. 319, CrPC. This application is dated 11-1-2001. There is an endorsement of A.D.G.C. (Cri), "Filed by State." Then beneath this order of learned Sessions Judge runs as follows : "Allowed. Summon the accused." There is yet another endorsement of the office." Summons issued on 12-2-2001.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant in revision submitted before the Court that the above order passed by the learned Magistrate itself shows that the trial Court has not assigned any reason as to why the accused has been summoned and thus it follows that there has been no application of mind. This submission of the learned counsel is not devoid of force. It is well settled that orders without reasonings have no value in the eye of law. Obligation to give reasons introduces clarity and excludes or at any rate minimizes the chances of arbitrariness and the higher forum can test the correctness of those reasons.;