VINOD PRASAD, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A.
(2.) IN pursuance of my order dated 2-2-2007, Sri A. Kumar Singh Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 2, Kanpur Dehat is personally present before this Court. He has made a statement that due to wrong reading of the text book written by Sri D.K. Basu that the mistake has been committed by him in acquitting the co-accused and the present revisionists of the present case and then directing the trial Court to proceed against the present revisionist who were the co-accused in that very trial and was present before the trial Judge. In view of the said statement I am of the opinion that no further action should be taken against the Presiding Officer in respect of the impugned order. I have heard Sri R.C. Yadav learned Counsel for the revisionists in support of this revision as well as Smt. Usha Kiran and A.G.A. in opposition.
(3.) THE contention of the revisionists is that since in this case co-accused were convicted the same day on which the order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was passed against the revisionists. Therefore, the summoning order passed against the revisionists is bad in law as the revisionists cannot be tried alongwith other co-accused which is required under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Learned Counsel contended that on the plain reading of Section 319 Cr.P.C. the trial of newly added accused should have been concluded alongwith already existing accused persons.;