Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA. for the State.
This revision is directed against the judgment order dated 17.01.2011 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, (FTC), Court No. 3, Farrukhabad, in Sessions Trial No. 381 of 2008 (State Vs. Arvind Kumar and another), under Section 307 IPC, P.S. Meerapur, District Farrukhabad, whereby the revisionist were summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that learned trial court had summoned the revisionist on the ground that there was sufficient evidence against the revisionist. It is submitted that learned trial court has not recorded his satisfaction that there exists a possibility that the accused so summoned, in all likelihood, would be convicted and thus, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.
Per contra learned A.G.A. made his submissions in support of the impugned order.
I have examined the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and the other materials brought on record as well as the case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the revisionists in support of his submissions.
In Mohd. Shafi Vs. Mohd. Rafiq and another, 2007 (58) ACC 254, the Apex Court had held that before a Court exercising its discretionary jurisdiction in terms of Section 319 Cr.P.C., it must arrive at the satisfaction that there exists a possibility that the accused so summoned, is in all likelihood, liable to be convicted.
In Sarabjit Singh & another Vs. State of Punjab & another, (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 141, the Apex Court held that for exercising extra ordinary jurisdiction under section 319 Cr.P.C., the Courts are required to apply stringent tests; one of the test being whether evidence on record is such which would reasonably lead to conviction of the person sought to be summoned and mere existence of a prima facie case may not serve the purpose.
Since learned trial court has not recorded his satisfaction as above, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
The application in revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 12.11.2010 is set aside. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun is directed to decide the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. afresh in accordance with the directions of the Apex Court in the cases of Mohd. Shafi and Sarabjit (supra).
Order Date :- 9.2.2011 arun