- (1.) J. C. Mishra, J. This revision has been filed against the order dated 28th October, 1986 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Agra modifying the sum moning order passed by the Magistrate and holding that no offence under Section 3071. P. C. ismadeout.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the O. Ps. and learned A. G. A. The learned counsel for the revisionist contended that in view of the past enmity and strong motive against the accused as also the fact the accused had fired shot it must be inferred that the ac cused had intention to commit murder. A perusal of the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge would show that from the evidence on record there is no doubt that the accused had fired at the house of the complainant. He specifically observed that the record does not reveal at all that the accused persons had shot any fire towards the complainant with intention of inflicting any injury. In view of the evidence that the accused had not fired at the complainant but at his house, the learned Additional Sessions Judge committed no illegality in holding that there was no material to indicate that the accused attempted to commit murder. He, therefore, modified the order with respect to the offence under Section 307 IPC only. The remaining part of the order was maintained. In the grounds of revision nowhere it is mentioned that the learned Additional Sessions Judge travelled beyond the record or his observation is incorrect. In other words, it has not even been alleged by the revisionist that the accused had fired towards the com plainant. Therefore, the inference drawn by the Additional Sessions Judge cannot be said to be erroneous. The learned counsel then con tended that the accused had filed an ap plication under Section 482 Cr. PC. which was registered as Criminal Misc. Applica tion No. 805 of 1984 Babu Lai and others v. Radhey Shyam, where they had challenged the summoning order on the ground that since the offence complained was ex clusively triable by the Court of Session a duty was cast on the Magistrate to have recorded the statements of all the wit nesses cited in the complaint. The petition was allowed and the order was set aside with the direction that the Magistrate will give opportunity to the complainant to examine all his witnesses or to move ap plication stating that he would not ex-amine such witnesses. In compliance of the order the Magistrate gave opportunity to the complainant to examine his witnesses and then passed the impugned order. 5, The learned counsel for the revisionist contended that at that time it was not contended by the revisionist that no offence was made out and, therefore, the revisional Court had no jurisdiction to take the view that offence under Section 307 I. P. C. was not made out. I do not find any force in this contention. Since the complainant was challenging the entire summoning order and his argument was accepted, it was unnecessary to canvass before the Court at that time that offence under Section 307 I. P. C. is not made out. The argument of the learned counsel is that since the High Court did not hold at that time that offence under Section 307 I. P. C. was not made out the revisional Court could not take that view. This argu ment is also devoid offeree. No such nega tive inference can be drawn. Moreover, as observed earlier this Court has quashed the entire summoning order and there was no occasion to consider whether the of fence under Section 307 was made out or not. 6. The revision is dismissed. Revision dismissed. .;