- (1.) Heard Sri O.P. Singh, Senior Advocate, appearing for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.
(2.) By means of this Revision, the revisionist is assailing the order dated 01.05.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Mathura summoning the revisionist under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in S.T. No. 343 of 2012 (State Vs. Amar Singh & Others) arising from Case crime No. 272 of 2011 under Sections 302, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Baldeo, District Mathura.
(3.) The contention of the learned Senior Counsel is that the revisionist who was named in the First Information Report on investigation his name was not included in the report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C., therefore, the impugned order summoning the revisionist is erroneous. It is further contended that there is no evidence against the revisionist, the involvement of the revisionist is due to political rivalry in the village. Finally, it is contented that the trail court while summoning has failed to record a specific finding that there is chances of conviction of the revisionist in the trial. In support of his submission, the learned Senior Counsel has relied upon a large number of cases which in my opinion need not be gone into.;