PANKAJ BHANDARI, J. - (1.) Complainant-petitioner has preferred this Revision Petition aggrieved by Order dated 22.08.2016 passed by Additional Session Judge No.2, Bayana, District Bharatpur, whereby application filed on behalf of the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was rejected.
(2.) It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that Non- Petitioner No.2 to 10 are named in the FIR as well as in the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Their names also appear in the statement of witnesses recorded before the Court. It is contended that in the statement of witnesses overt act has also been assigned to non-petitioner Nos.2, 3, 6 and 9.
(3.) It is contended that the Court below wrongly interpreted the Judgment of Apex Court in "Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 92" and came to the conclusion that the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution if remains unrebutted would not lead to the conviction of the non-petitioner and on this ground, the application was rejected.;