Anil Kumar Srivastava, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
(2.) Revision has been preferred against the order passed by the learned Special/ Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri dated 12.5.2006 in S.T. No.702/98, whereby the revisionists have been summoned under section 319 Cr.P.C.
(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionists are the practicing lawyers who were doing 'pairavi' of Ram Singh. On this ground they have been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that the first information report was lodged against the eight persons wherein the role assigned to the revisionist was of exhortation. Pending investigation revisionists were exonerated and charge sheet was not filed against them. Thereafter, when the statement of PW-1 Nagendra Kumar and PW-2 Laxman was recorded thereafter, the learned trial court has summoned the revisionist under section 319 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the revisionists have no concern with the case, rather since they were doing 'pairavi' as a lawyer on behalf of Ram Singh co- accused, hence, they have been falsely implicated with the object that no-one could do pairavi on behalf of the accused. It is further submitted that the learned trial court has erred in summoning the revisionist under section 319 Cr.P.C.;