- (1.) THIS criminal revision, preferred by the revisionist under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr. P. C.), is directed against the judgment and or der dated 03-05- 2003 passed by Ses sions Judge, Hardwar in Criminal Revi sion No. 596/2002, Cyan Chand & oth ers Vs. State of Uttaranchal, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 8-10-2002 passed by IInd FTC/civil Judge (Senior Division), Roorkee.
(2.) I have heard Sri Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri M. A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State/respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri S. K. Shandilya, learned counsel for re spondent No. 4 and perused the entire material available in the file. No one ap pears for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, though service is reported to be sufficient. In brief, the facts of the case are that in S. T. No. 437 of 2000, State Vs. Pinky, the prosecution moved an appli cation under Section 319 Cr. P. C. with a prayer that Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 namely Cyan Chand, Anwar and Kirat respectively may be summoned in the court. Against the application moved by the prosecution, Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 filed their objections. The prosecution in support of its case produced P. W. I Meghraj, P. W. 2 Babu Ram, P. W. 3 Kunwar Pal and P. W. 4 Raj Kumar in the aforesaid S. T. No. 437/2000. In the statement recorded before the trial court, P. W. I Megh Raj has stated that when he was sitting in his house, then five persons namely Cyan Chand (Re spondent No. 4), his sons Pinky & Situ, Anwar Singh (Respondent No. 5) and his son Kirat (Respondent No. 6) came. Re spondent No. 6-Kirat was armed with a sword and rest of the accused persons were armed with Lathis. These accused persons while abusing P. W. I Megh Raj started beating him. Due to the above-said incident, P. W. I Meghraj received the injuries. The evidence of P. W. I Meghraj is also corroborated with the evidence of P. W. 2 Babu Ram, P. W. 3 Kunwar Pal and P. W. 4 Raj Kumar, who are also the eyewitnesses of the incident. On the basis of the evidence recorded before the trial court, the learned IInd FTC/civil Judge (Senior Division) Roorkee vide order dated 8-10-2002 al lowed the application moved by the prosecution and summoned the Re spondent Nos. 4 to 6 Cyan Chand, Anwar Singh & Kirat Singh respectively for the offences punishable under Sec tions 147/148/323/324/325/504 IPC. Against the said order dated 8-10- 2002 passed by the trial court, the Respond ent Nos. 4 to 6 preferred a Criminal Re vision before Sessions Judge, Hardwar. The learned Sessions Judge, Hardwar vide his judgment and order dated 3-5- 2003 allowed the revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 8-10-2002 passed by the trial court. Feeling ag grieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 3-5-2003, the complainant/revisionist has preferred the present re vision before this Court. Sri Rajendra Singh, learned coun sel for the revisionist argued that the or der passed by Sessions Judge is against the law and facts on record. He further submitted that Sessions Judge has erred in law by allowing the revision on the basis of presumptions. I find force in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist. The learned Sessions Judge, Hardwar has allowed the revision only on the ground that only four wit nesses have been examined by the pros ecution and rest of the witnesses are re maining for recording their evidences. This finding recorded by Sessions Judge, Hardwar is not correct as per law. In this circumstance, Section 319 Cr. P. C. is essential to mention here which is re produced as wider : 319. Power to proceed against other ' persons appearing to be guilty of of fence- (1) Where, in the court of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may pro ceed against such person for the of fence which he appears to have committed. (2) Where such person is not attend ing the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the pur pose aforesaid. (3) Any person attending the Court although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed. (4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1) then- (a) The proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh and the witnesses re-heard; (b) Subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.
(3.) AS per Section 319 Cr. P. C. quoted above, where, in the court of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. From a perusal of the order dated 8-10-2002 passed by IInd FTC/civil Judge (Senior Division) Roorkee, it appears that trial court has summoned-the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 on the ba sis of the evidence of the four eyewitnesses who have supported the prosecution case and they have given their spe cific evidence against Respondent Nos. 4 to 6. Out of these four eyewitnesses, one is the injured witnesses P. W. 1 Meghraj. Besides this, Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 are also named in the FIR. Due to the foregoing facts and circumstances, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the judgment and order dated 8-10-2002 passed by IInd FTC/civil Judge (Senior Division) Roorkee. AS such, the judgment and order dated 03-05-2003 passed by Ses sions Judge, Hardwar is not correct and justified and the same is not as per law and the evidence available on record. Sri S. K. Shandilya, learned coun sel for the Respondent No. 4 argued that a cross case is also pending in the court against the revisionists, hence the sum moning order is bad in law. The argu ment advanced by counsel for Respond ent No. 4 is not sustainable in the eye of law due to the reason that the pendency of the cross-case is not at all of any ef fect to the pendency of the present trial. Further, the cross case is not affected by the summoning of the accused per sons in any way which is to be heard on merits.;