- (1.) P. K. Jain, J. Heard Sri Apul Mishra, learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA.
(2.) A report in crime No. 215/95 under Section 302 was registered before police station Bhojipura, Bareilly and revisionist Suresh Chandra Dixit was nominated as one of the accused who had participated in ac tual commission of the crime. The police investigated the case and chargesheeted five accused persons and at the same time submitted final report against the revisionist. After the case was committed to the Court of Sessions some witnesses were examined in the Trial Court and after going through the evidence of these witnesses the trial Court summoned the applicant under Section 319, Cr. P. C. by order dated 8-7-97. It is this order which has been challenged in this revision. Having heard learned Counsel for the revisionist I find no merit in the revision. The sole contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionist is that under Section 319, Cr. P. C. only a person who is not an accused of the offence will be sum moned by the trial Court. His contention is that the revisionist was nominated in the FIR and even though the final report was accepted by the Magistrate he continues to be an accused. I do not agree with this con tention of the leanred Counsel for the revisionist. Once after acceptance of the final report an accused nominated in the first information report is exonerated he does not continue to be an accused. It is true that under Section 319 (1), Cr. P. C. the trial Court may summon any person not being an accused if the Court finds that such person has also committed an offence and he can be tried with other accused persons before the Court. In the instant case the revisionist was not an accused before the trial Court since he had already been exonerated of the offen ces against him on submission and accep tance of the final report against him. Learned Counsel also contends that after the final report was submitted no protest petition was filed nor any revision against the acceptance of the final report was filed. May it be so, that does not oust the jurisdic tion of the trial Court from summoning any person if the Court finds from the evidence before it that such person has also com mitted offence for which he could be tried with other accused persons before the trial Court.
(3.) THERE being no merit in this revision, it is summarily dismissed. Revision dismissed. .;