BALVEER AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF U.P.AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 24-7-2006 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) I, Court No. 10, Mathura in S.T. No. 215 of 2006 whereby the trial Court on the application of the prosecution under Section 319, Cr.P.C. summoned the revisionists to face trial alongwith other accused persons.

(2.) HEARD Sri H.N. Singh, Counsel for the revisionists, Sri Lalit Kumar Shukla, Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and A.G.A.

(3.) COUNSEL for the complainant and A.G.A. contended that these revisionists were nominated as accused but with the connivance of police they were nor charge-sheeted nor final report was submitted and were exonerated by the Investigating Officer because both the revisionists are the constables of Railway Protection Force. It is also contended that the revisionists, who were named as accused and when the case of the other accused persons were committed to Court of Session, Dinesh was, examined, during the trial, as P.W. 1 and he named these revisionists in his statement. Thereafter, an application under Section 319, Cr.P.C. was moved by the Public Prosecutor to summon these persons and trial Court, vide his order dated 24-7-2006 by a detailed and reasoned order, summoned the revisionists to face trial alongwith other accused persons.