M.A.A.KHAN, J. - (1.) HEARD .
(2.) VIDE his impugned order the learned Magistrate has dismissed complainant's application u/s 319 Cr. P.C. and thus declined to summon one Ram Avtar as co -accused in the present case. The learned Magistrate has observed that the charge -sheet in the present case was filed on 18 -12 1990 and it was after a lapse of about 5 years that the complainant chose to move the present application u/s 319 Cr. P.C. after getting himself examined as PW -1. The learned Magistrate further observed that the statement of Bhawani Singh complainant, as recorded at the time of trial, does not incriminate Ram Avtar so as to summon him as co -accused in the case. I have looked into the file of the learned Magistrate. Bhawani Singh and Kan Singh, the alleged two persons who allegedly sustained injuries in the present case were caused abrasion and bruise on their persons. The police had submitted a negative report against Ram Avtar and the complainant could have objected to such report at the first opportunity available to him. Moreover as stated by the learned Magistrate the statement of Bhawani Singh did not disclose sufficient evidence justifying the summoning of Ram Avtar as co -accused in the case. In my opinion in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Magistrate has exercised the jurisdiction vested in him quite judicially and judiciously. The impugned Order does not suffer from any infirmity or invalidity. Therefore, this petition is dismissed. Delay caused in the trial of the case is attributed to the prosecution. Revision dismissed.;