K.N.SINHA,J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA and Sri Sanjay Tripathi for opposite party No. 2.
(2.) THE present revision has been filed against the order dated 6-1-2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur Trial No. 324 of 2000, allowing the application 68(Kh) State v. Hari Krishna and others, summoning the revisionists under Section 319, Cr. P.C. The names of the applicants appeared in the FIR but they were not charge-sheeted. However, the informant Vijay Narain PW 1 stated that revisionist Surendra Kumar Agrawal alongwith Nagendra Singh, Mahendra Agrawal, Rai Awadh Singh, Guljari and other accused fired upon the informant in the school campus with an intention to kill them but somehow they managed to escape. In view of the above evidence the revisionist were summoned. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the accused persons who were named in the FIR but not charge-sheeted cannot be summoned by the Court. This argument does not held ground as the controversy has been set at rest by the apex Court in the case of Smt. Rukhsana Khatoon v. Sakhawat Husain and others, reported in 2002(2) JIC 455 (SC) : 2002 (44) ACC page 411, when it has been held that though an accused named in the FIR and not charge sheeted can be summoned by the Court under Section 319, Cr. P.C. Not only this, the apex Court has further held that this power can be invoked both by the Court having original jurisdiction and also by the Court to which the case was committed. Thus, the law laid down by the apex Court in the above case settles the point in controversy that the person named in the FIR but not charge-sheeted can also be summoned by invoking the jurisdiction under Section 319, Cr. P.C.
(3.) VIJAY Narain Dubey the first informant has named the revisionists as accused in the FIR. He has confirmed his stand while entering into the witness box. If the police had not charge-sheeted them the informants statement is sufficient to summon the revisionists under Section 319, Cr. P.C.;