Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1743 of 2019 Revisionist :- Bholendra Alias Bhulendra And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Sikandar Khan,Rahul Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Shri Rahul Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants; Shri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and; learned AGA for the State.
2. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 02.04.2019 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court no. 5, Bulandshahr in Criminal Misc. Case No. 229 of 2019 (CNR No. UPBU01-003373-2019) filed in S.T. No. 722/2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 15 of 2018, under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C., Police Station- Ahaar, District- Bulandshahr.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, the applicants have been prematurely summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C., though neither there was any evidence or material collected during the investigation, reflecting their involvement in the commission of the offence nor there is any evidence led during the trial to implicate them with such offence. However, even as to the satisfaction necessary to be recorded for the purpose of passing an order under Section 319 Cr.P.C., learned court below has not recorded such satisfaction in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 92 (paragraph no. 106), but has only recorded that at this stage, prima facie, it appears that the applicants were involved in the commission of offence. Attacking the reasoning in the impugned order, learned counsel for the applicant would submit, prima facie satisfaction stands on far lower pedestal than a strong satisfaction required to be recorded by the learned trial court, based on the evidence before it to try to third person along with the accused persons being already tried.
4. Though, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has opposed the motion and submitted that in view of the testimony of Arun Kumar (P.W.-1), the applicants are liable to be tried for the offence alleged, however, going strictly by the order which contains part of the testimony considered by the learned court below, it appears that the same is only to the extent of the last seen testimony.
5. In any case, no satisfaction as is required to be recorded by the learned court below before summoning the applicants has been recorded. In this regard, paragraph no. 106 of the judgement in Hardeep Singh (supra) may be taken note of.
6. Accordingly, the order dated 02.04.2019 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court no. 5, Bulandshahr is hereby set-aside. The matter is remitted to it to decide afresh, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
7. With the aforesaid observation, the present revision is disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019 Prakhar