- (1.) MUKTESHWAR Prasad, J. This criminal revision by one Mom Raj son of Sukkhan has been filed against the order dated 20-1-1988 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad in ST. No. 563 of 1986 State v. Khaderu and others, whereby the learned Judge summoned the revisionist to face trial along with other accused under Section 302 I. P. C. and exercised his powers under Section 319 Cr PC.
(2.) I have heard Sri Akhilesh Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A. G. A. and perused the record. Admittedly, revisionist was also named in the F. I. R. along with four other accused, Khacheru, Buddhan, Babu and Janki for having committed murder of one Khub Chand. During trial, the prosecution examined P. W. 1 Ram Pal Singh on 20-1-1988 and on the same day, an application 14 Kha was moved by the State under Section 319 Cr. P. C. for summoning the revisionist as an accused to face trial. After having considered the statement of Ram Pal Singh and statements of other witnesses recorded during investigation, learned Judge summoned the revisionist to face trial along with others.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist has challenged the impugned order solely on the ground that P. W. 1 Ram Pal Singh was not cross examined by the learned counsel for the defence and merely on the basis of the examination in chief recorded in the Court, learned Judge was not justified to summon the revisionist to face trial. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the revisionist on a decision of the Apex Court in Michael Machado and another v. Central Bureau of investigation and another, 2000 (2) JIIC 5 (SC) : AIR 2000 SC 1127.;