- (1.) BHAGWAN Din, j. The facts in brief, giving rise to the present revision, are that one Manohar Lal Jha lodged a report at the police station, Jokhyaun, District, Lalitpur against Devendra Kumar, Rakesh Kumar and Akhilesh Kumar with the allegations that they be laboured him with kicks and fists while he was on govern ment duty and also threatened him to life.
(2.) ON the basis of the written FIR, a case was registered at the police station under Sections 332/333/353/504/506, IPC vide crime No. 255 of 1998. The case was investigated and the Investigating Officer ultimately submitted a charge-sheet against Devendra Kumar and Akhilesh Kumar. He did not forward Rakesh Kumar to the Court for trial. The offence punishable under Sec tion 333, IPC is triable by the Court of Sessions, hence the Magistrate after com pleting the legal formalities, provided under Section 207, Cr PC, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. After fram ing the charges, the trial of two above co-accused persons commenced. The examination-in-chief of the complainant, Manohar Lal was recorded. He stated that the accused, Rakesh Kumar also was one of the assailants and, therefore, the Addi tional Sessions judge summoned him under Section 319, Cr PC. Against this order the present revision has been preferred. Learned Counsel appearing for the revisionist contends that the evidence in reference to Section 319, Cr PC is com plete only after cross-examination. Since the trial Court has summoned the revisionist on the basis of examination-in-chief of the complainant, the order of sum moning as such is bad in law.
(3.) SIMILAR, controversy arose in num ber of criminal revisions and in the ap plications under Section 482, Cr PC an3 there had been difference of opinion in this regard. Hence, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. K. Phaujdar referred the case formulating a question "whether the term 'evidence used in Section 319, Cr PC could only mean an evidence complete by cross-examination or if the Court can take action under this Section even on the statement made in examination-in-chief of one or other witnesses. " SIMILAR, reference was also made by Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. A. Rahim. The controversy now has been finally set tied by the Division Bench of this Court in Ram Copal and another v. State of UP. , ACC 1999 (38) 123, answering the reference "the term 'evidence' as used in Section 319, Cr PC does not mean evidence complete by cross examination and the Court can take action under Sec tion 319, Cr PC even on the statement made in examination-in-chief of one or more witnesses.;