- (1.) O. P. Pradhan, J. This revision is directed against the order dated 9-7-1992 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor in Sessions Trial No. 278 of 1987 - State v. Karimuddin and others, whereby the revisionists were summon ed to stand their trial under Sections 307, 149, 148 and 452, I. P. C.
(2.) THE factual matrix of the case is that on the basis of the first infor mation report lodged on 6-12-1986 investigation followed and the Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet against accused persons other than the revi sionists. In respect of the revisionists, the Investigating Officer concluded that the material collected against them during investigation was inadequate and, therefore, they were not being sent up for trial. THE case was committed to the Court of Session and this gave rise to Sessions Trial No. 278 of 1987. At the trial, the statement of Yamin (PW 1) was recorded by III Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor on 9- 7-1992. During his evidence, this witness clearly stated that the revisionists had fired at the father of the witness with an intention to kill him and the father received gun-shot injuries. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the A. D. G. C. ' (Criminal) and perusing the record including the evidence of Yam in (PW 1) case to find that a prima facie case was made out against the revisionists for offences under Sections 307, 149, 148 and 462, I. P. C. and he, therefore, passed an order for summon ing them through bailable warrants to stand the trial. This order has been im pugned in the present revision. I have heard the learned counsel of the revisionists and perused the materials on record.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionists has placed reliance on the case reported in AIR 1990 SC 2158, Sohan Lal and others v. State of Rajasthan and has urged this Court that the revisionists could not be summoned to stand the trial in exercise of the powers under Section 319, Cr. P. C, since they were not covered under the expression "any person not being the accused", I have gone through this reported case which related to the case of the accused, who were sent up for trial but were discharged by the Magistrate concerned, while charges were framed by him against the other accused persons. The instant case is squarely covered by the case reported in AIR 1979 SC 339 - Joginder Singh and another v. State of Punjab and another. This case was also noticed with approval by the Supreme Court in AIR 1990 SC 2158 (supra ). It was clearly laid down in Joginder Singh's case (supra) that the contention that the phrase "any person not being accused occurring in Section 319 excludes from its operation an accused, who has been released by the police under Section 169 of the Code and has been shown in column No. 2 of the charge-sheet, has merely to be stated to be rejected. It was further laid down that the said expression clearly covers any person who is not being tried already by the Court and the very purpose of enacting such a provision like Section 319 (1) clearly shows that even persons who have been dropped by the police during investigation but against whom evidence showing their envolvement in the offence comes before the Criminal Court, are included in the said expression. Likewise, reference may also be made to a decision of this Court itself report ed in 1988 Criminal Law Journal 1467 - Margoobul Hasan v. State of U. P. The facts of the later case were also similar to the facts of the instant case before this Court. In the result, I find that the order summoning the revisionists is justi fied and the present revision is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed summarily. Revision dismissed. .;