- (1.) The instant revision has been preferred against the order dated 16.07.2013, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Ex. Cadre-1, Raebareli allowing the application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of informant. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, directed that the accused Kamta and Satideen be also summoned under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act for trial on the basis of application moved under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.
(2.) The brief facts giving rise to the revision are that charge-sheet has been submitted under Section 323/504/506 I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act against accused Lalta and Girdhari by the police of Police Station Dih, District Raebareli. The learned Magistrate took cognizance on the charge-sheet and committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial and it is triable exclusively by court of sessions. During trial, the prosecution has produced informant Rajdei- P.W.1 and witness Ram Kumar-P.W.-2. The prosecution also produced Dr. Rohit Katiyar and constable Dharmraj as P.W.3 and P.W.4 respectively and when the case was fixed for statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for defence an application has been moved on behalf of the complainant Rajdei under Section 319 Cr.P.C. that accused Kamta and Satideen be also summoned for trial as the allegations are very much clear against them also. The opposite party disputed the application on the ground that the proceedings of trial are over and the case has been fixed for statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and for defence. Therefore, this is beyond the purview of Section 319 of Cr.P.C. and the court can utilize the Section 319 Cr.P.C. only during trial or during inquiry but afterwards this type of proceedings cannot be initiated. The court after hearing both the parties allowed the instant application. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the instant revision has been preferred.
(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist argued at length and pointed out that the impugned order is bad in law and cannot be sustained because the court has not reached to the conclusion that the persons so summoned are in all likelihood would be convicted. Therefore, it should be primarily requirement that fact should be such that it may warrant in conviction. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the revisionist placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohd. Shafi vs. Mohd. Rafiq, 2007 58 AllCriC 254. The Hon'ble Apex Court in para 13 of the said judgment has held as under:- "13. From the decision of this Court, as noticed above, it is evident that before a Court exercises its discretionary jurisdiction in terms of section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it must arrive at the satisfaction that there exists a possibility that the accused so summoned is in all likelihood would be convicted. Such satisfaction can be arrived at inter alia upon completion of the cross-examination of the said witness. For the said purpose, the Court concerned may also like to consider other evidence. We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court has committed an error in passing the impugned judgment. It is accordingly set aside. The appeal is allowed.";