Allahabad High Court
Jagjeet Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. & Ors. on 20 July, 2010
Author: Ashok Kumar Roopanwal
Bench: Ashok Kumar Roopanwal
Court No. - 50 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2693 of 2010 Petitioner :- Jagjeet Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- Vijay Singh Sengar Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Ashok Kumar Roopanwal,J.
This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 23.6.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/ F.T.C. No. 2, Jalaun at Orai, in S. T. No. 13 of 2008, State Vs. Krishna Pal Singh @ Guddu and others, whereby in exercise of the powers u/s 319 Cr.P.C. the court summoned the revisionists to stand trial with the accused already on trial.
It appears from the record that initially the FIR was lodged against four persons namely Jagjeet Singh, Krishnapal Singh @ Guddu, Rampal Singh @ Chhote Raja and Brishbhanu Singh. However, after investigation the charge sheet was submitted only against two persons. It was not submitted against the revisionists. After the statement of PW1 an application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. was moved by the prosecution for summoning the revisionists. That application was rejected. Against that order prosecution approached the High Court and the High Court remanded the matter back for a fresh hearing. Thereafter the matter was again taken up by the trial court and relying on the statement of PW1, which had previously been recorded, the impugned order was passed.
Heard Mr. V. S. Sengar, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
It has been argued by Mr. Sengar that four persons are said to have taken part in the incident but only two injuries were found on the person of the injured, therefore, it is a case, which was under suspicion and the revisionists should not have been summoned. He further argued that O.P. No. 2 was a man of great influence and under his influence the arms license of the revisionists had already been cancelled.
So far as this argument is concerned that only two injuries were found on the person of the injured and the number of injuries does not commensurate with the number of accused, in that regard it is pertinent to mention that once PW1 in clear terms, has stated that not only the accused against whom the charge sheet was submitted, the revisionists also took part in the incident and because that statement could not be belied it hardly matters that how many injuries were caused to the victim.
So far as the other argument is concerned, that is only a presumptive argument and has no bearing on the merits of the case and that cannot be considered while passing the order on the application u/s 319 Cr.P.C.
Considering the fact that PW1 had stated in clear terms that the revisionists were also amongst those, who had taken part in the incident, the evidence was of such nature, which in all probability could fasten guilt upon the revisionists and in view of this aspect, there was every justification for summoning the revisionists. Consequently, I do not find any merits in the revision.
The revision is dismissed. However, it is directed that in case the revisionists appear before the court concerned within fifteen days from today and apply for bail, the same shall be considered as expeditiously as possible and if there is no impediment in disposal on the same day, the same day.
Order Date :- 20.7.2010 Pcl