- (1.) AMAR Saran, J. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A. G. A.
(2.) AN order dated 7. 9. 2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge F. T. C. Court No. 5, Deoria in ST. No. 138 of 2005, State v. Gauri Shankar and othors, rejecting the application of the revisionist under Section 319, Cr. P. C. has boen challenged by means of this application. The impugned order has been passed on the ground that after two witnesses P. W. 1 Vijay Kumar Dixit and P. W. 2 Vinod Kumar Dixit were examined, the Court was only satisfied that two persons Subhash and Ashok alias Tuntun should be summoned and had passed an order to that effect on 26. 8. 2006. But it is observed in the said order that there is no ground for summoning the applicant, the opposite parties No. 2 to 4 Laxman, Guddan alias Priyanka and Smt. Devanti. No doubt, it is open to implead additional persons as accused when some sub stantial evidenee is forth coming and the application under Section 319, Cr. P. C. was also partly allowed and two persons Subhash and Ashok a as Tuntun were summoned. But there is no further material available and from the mere fact that in the cross case Devanti Devi and Priyanka were shown as injured persons, hence, their presence at the time of incident could not be ruled out provides no found for summoning the opposite parties No. 2 to 4.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the revisionist, however, has drawn my attention to the statement of P. W. 4 Smt. Narayani Devi. On perusal of the said statement, I find that she has made omnibus allegations of assault by all the accused per sons. She has stated that she had fainted and remained unconscious for 1- 1 2 hours and even her son Vinod had fainted. I do, not thmk that the same improves the matter any further for justifying a fresh order for summoning the opposite parties No. 2 to 4 also. If the application under Section 319, Cr. P. C. is allowed at this stage, it will require recall of all the witnesses afresh and that will result in unnecessary delay in the disposal of the trial. There is, therefore, no illegality in the impugned order " The application is reiected. .;