M.Wahajuddin - (1.) A number of accused persons were arrayed as accused including one Bhagat. Bhagat was not served and the complainant then preferred an application that actually Bhagat is the alias of Guru Kumar Verma and summons be issued accordingly. The Magistrate then directed that Bhagat alias Guru Kumar Varma be summoned. A revision was filed and that too was dismissed.
(2.) IT is urged that actually such an order could be passed only under Section 319 CrPC. I do not find any force in such argument. Section 319 CrPC, provides for summoning of a person, who is not an accused initially. In fact, according to the prosecution stand, the applicant is an accused from the very inception and Guru Kumar and Bhagat are the same person. It was next urged that in any case any order could not be passed on the strength of an affidavit, which would not be considered as of formal nature. My feeling is that even any affidavit is not required and the person concerned could be summoned on an application alone maintaining that Bhagat and Guru Kumar are the same person and actually one is alias for the other. Strangely enough neither Guru Kumar appeared, nor he himself filed any counter-affidavit that he does not bear the alias of Bhagat and he is not Bhagat. Apart from that, these matters are to be . considered in the course of trial in connection with the appreciation of evidence and complicity of any person. This court exercising inherent powers will not obstruct the smooth procedure before the Magistrate. The application under Section 482, CrPC, is summarily rejected. Application rejected.;