- (1.) The revision is directed against the order dated 18.5.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No. 3, Bulandshahar in S.T.No. 4 of 2014 ( State Vs. Mahesh Chandra and others ) whereby the application No. 46-B filed under section 319 Cr.P.C.has been accepted and accused-applicants Dimpu alias Madan, Smt. Suman, Veer Singh and Smt. Kamlesh have been summoned for the offence under sections 498-A, 307 I.P.C.read with 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and accused applicants Anju and Lalit have been summoned only for the offence section 307 I.P.C.
(2.) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the revision is before this Court.
(3.) It has been submitted on behalf of the revisionists that the specific finding should have been recorded by the Court that the evidence relied upon by the court for summoning the additional accused under section 319 Cr.P.C.would entail conviction. No such finding has been recorded. The order is bad in law. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the revisionists has also placed relied upon the case law Navneesh vs. State of U.P.and another, 2012 76 AllCriC 380.;