- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.
(2.) This criminal revision under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the impugned order dated 11.4.2016 passed by Sessions Judge, Hapur in Session Trial No. 315 of 2015 (State Vs. Sunder and others) in Case Crime No. 290 of 2013, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station - Babugarh, District -Hapur whereby revisionist Indrajeet has been summoned to face trial.
(3.) Assailing the impugned order the learned counsel for revisionist submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has wrongly allowed the application 31A under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge has based its judgement on an inadmissible evidence, which is bad in eyes of law. The learned counsel for revisionist has further argued that the learned Judge has not considered the case in its right perspective and misread the evidence on record, hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the revision deserves to be allowed.;