Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis, J. - (1.) SUPPLEMENTARY affidavit filed today is taken on record. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionists, the learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
(2.) THE instant revision has been filed challenging the order dated 2.12.2011, whereby the revisionists have been summoned by the Additional District 7 Sessions judge, Court No. 13, Ghaziabad, under Sections 367, 326, 307/34 IPC, by allowing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the prosecution in Sessions Trial No. 1327 of 2011. The prosecution case in nutshell is that a first information report was lodged on 12.2.2011 by the respondent no. 2, that the revisionists and other accused persons, named in the first information report had taken his son Nadeem on 11.2.2011 on the pretext of dance, but he was got drunk by the accused persons and his private part was amputated by him and was thrown at a pulia, where he was found on 12.2.2011, thereafter the first information report was registered. After registration of the report the police came in action and investigated the case and the charge sheet was submitted only against Sartaj, Sajid and Dr. Nabi Mohammad, exonerating the accused revisionists. After cognizance the charge sheeted accused persons stood for trial, where the statement of opposite party no. 2, Smt. Salma and the victim Nadeem as P.W.1 and 2, were recorded who had stated about the complicity of the accused -respondents, who have been illegally exonerated by the police during investigation, though they have been specifically named in the first information report, and as such the opposite party no. 2 moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the revisionists under Sections 367, 326, 307/34 IPC. The court below after going through the statements of P.W.1, Smt. Salma (complainant) and P.W.2 Nadeem (victim) found sufficient evidence that prima facie offence is made out against them in the commission of aforesaid offence and as such summoned the revisionists to face the trial under Sections 367, 326, 307/34 IPC.
(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the revisionists is that the order passed by the court below, summoning the revisionist is manifestly illegal and erroneous as against the provision of Section 319 Cr.P.C. The order has been passed mechanically summoning the revisionist to face the trial. The court below only by going through the case diary, relying upon the statements of the victim and complainant, arrived at the conclusion that prima facie offence is made out against the revisionists. The discretion under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised very sparingly only when the court concern is satisfied that the offence has been committed by the accused. The court below has acted mechanically by placing reliance that the evidence on record is sufficient to summon the accused revisionists without arriving at its own satisfaction that there is great likelihood of their conviction.;