Shri Kant Tripathi - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
(2.) THE revisionists Naksu and others have preferred this revision against the order dated 19.8.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Badaun in Special Session Trial No. 119 of 2000 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has summoned the revisionists under Section 319, Cr. P.C. to face trial in regard to the offences triable under Sections 147, 148, 326/149, 307/149 and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It may not be out of context to mention that all the revisionists were named in the F.I.R. but police during the investigation exonerated them and did not file any charge-sheet against them. During the trial P.W. 1 Ram Pal and P.W. 2 Ram Chandra who are said to be eye-witnesses of the occurrence were examined. These two witnesses have supported involvement of the revisionists in the commission of the offences detailed above. The learned lower court placing reliance on the statements of these two witnesses found that there were sufficient materials against the revisionists to summon them for trial alongwith other accused. Accordingly, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order summoning the appellants. The learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the revisionists were exonerated during the investigation on the basis of the same evidence and as such there was no justification to summon them during the trial.
(3.) IN my opinion the revision has no substance in view of the fact that P.W. 1 Ram Pal and P.W. 2 Ram Chandra have supported the prosecution story so far as the involvement of the revisionists is concerned. It is settled law that the power under Section 319, Cr. P.C. can be exercised either on an application made to the Court or by the Court suo motu. The Court has power under Section 319, Cr. P.C. to proceed against any person not shown to an accused if it appears from the evidence that such person has also committed an offence for which he can be tried together with the accused. The main object underlying Section 319, Cr. P.C. is that the whole case against all accused should be tried and disposed of not only expeditiously but also simultaneously. Justice and convenience both require that cognizance against the newly added accused should be taken in the same cease and in the same manner as against the original accused. It is, therefore, a matter of discretion of the Court to summon an accused under Section 319, Cr. P.C.;