- (1.) R. K. Agrawal, J. The only point involved in this revisions is whether the learned Sessions Judge, Hardoi was justified in summoning the revisionist under Section 319 Cr. P. Con the basis of examination-in-chief of the witness, Hari Niwas P. W. 1 without recording entire statement.
(2.) HEARD, learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the parties agree that the revision may be disposed of finally. In the Session Trial No. 212 of 1993, State of U. P. v. Laxmi Kant and Ors. , the statement of Hari Niwas (P. W. 1) was recorded on 31-3-1993 and his examination was to continue thereafter. Before conclusion of the examination, the learned Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order, summoning the revisionist, Jagdish Narain under Section 319 Cr. P. C. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has contended that the Court was not justified in exercising power under Section 319 Cr. PC. on the basis of incomplete statement of witness. The reliance has been placed on Veer Vikran Singh v. State, LCr. R 1987, page 203 and Mohan Lal v. The State of U. P. and Ors. , LLJ, 1990, page 271. In those cases, it was held by this Court that he power under Section 319 Cr. P. C. can not be exercised by the Court on the basis of mere examination-in-chief. In para 11 of the revision, it has been alleged that on the basis of only the examination-in-chief of Hari Niwas, learned Sessions Judge summoned the revisionist. In view of this, it is clear that the Court by impugned order has summoned the revisionist on the basis of examination-in-chief. This procedure adopted by learned Ses sion, Judge, Hardoi was not according to law.
(3.) THE revision is allowed. THE order dated 5-5-1994, passed by the learned Sessions Judge in S. T No. 212 of 1993 is set aside. THE learned Sessions Judge would get the complete statement of Hari Niwas and there after if it is necessary he may exercise power under Section 319 Cr. P. C. and may decide to summon the revisionist in the case. Revision allowed. .;