ORDER K.N. Sinha, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA.
2. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 22-3-2003 and 15-6-2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut, whereby he summoned the revisionist as an accused under Section 319, Cr. P.C.
3. It is alleged that a First Information Report was lodged against applicant and others but the chargesheet was submitted against the other accused leaving the applicant. During the trial two witnesses were examined who named the applicant hence on the application of the prosecution applicant was summoned under Section 319, Cr. P.C.
4. Learned counsel for applicant had submitted that there should be a reasoned order and based on evidence. He has relied upon Ram Lochan v. State of U.P. (2001) 43 All Cri C 395 : (2001 Cri LJ 4425 : 2001 All LJ 1994) wherein this Court held that 'while giving weight to the statement of a particular witness all facts and circumstances appearing in the case must be taken into consideration'.
5. I have perused the impugned order and find that the trial Judge has minutely examined the evidence of both the witnesses and passed a speaking order. On the facts of the case mentioned in Ram Lochan's case (supra) the trial judge had only ordered as follows :
"Allowed.
Summon the accused."
6. On the above background this Court held that reasons must be there. Thus this case law is not applicable on the facts of the present case.
7. Learned counsel has further relied upon case of Michael Machado v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 609 : (AIR 2000 SC 1127).
8. I have examined the above case and I find that the facts are quite different to the facts of the case in hand. On the facts of the case of Michael Machado (Supra) 49 witnesses had already been examined by the magistrate but they had not named the applicant as accused hence the Apex Court held that naming only by remaining three witnesses was insufficient to make out the offence against the appellants.
9. Thus, this authority is also not helpful to the revisionist.
10. Lastly, the learned counsel for the revisionist relied upon the case of Chandra Pal Singh v. State of U.P., (1991) 28 All Cri C 332 : 1991 All LJ 624, in which it was held that the Court should confine itself to the evidence adduced before it. The evidence collected during investigation cannot be the basis for summoning. This authority is also not applicable on the facts of the present case as the impugned order shows that the Court has confined itself to the evidence adduced before it.
11. Learned counsel for the revisionist-applicant submitted that Section 319 gives ample powers to the Court to issue summons and if there is no apprehension of his running away the Court can resort to provisions of Section 88 Cr.P.C. and bind him with personal bond with or without surety.
12. In the latest pronouncement by this Court in (2003) 46 All Cri C 34 : 2003 All LJ 55, Vedi Ram alias Medi Ram v. State of U.P. it was held that there cannot be two separate laws one for the accused against whom police submitted charge sheet and the other who was dropped from the array of the accused by the police but has been arrayed by Court's order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The Court further held that once a person has been arraigned as accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. he stands on the same footing as the other accused against whom police has filed charge-sheet, therefore, it is obligatory for the Court to send him to judicial custody on his appearance.
13. Thus it cannot be said that in all the cases where the accused has been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. the Court is bound to extend the benefit of Section 88 Cr.P.C.
14. The next contention is that the summoning order has been passed only on the basis of examination in chief. This controversy has been set at rest by the decisions of this Court and also of the Apex Court.
15. In Shiv Narain v. State of U.P. reported in 2000 Cri LJ 3346 : (2000 Cri LJ 1423). This Court held that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised even on the basis of evidence of witness or Witnesses recorded in examination in Chief.
16. The Apex Court in Smt. Rukhsana Khatoon v. Sakhawat Hussain, reported in (2002) 44 All Cri C 411 : (2002 Cri LJ 2969) : 2002 All LJ 1516 : AIR 2002 SC 2342, held that an accused though named in FIR and not charge-sheeted can be summoned by the learned Sessions Judge. It has also been held that Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be invoked both by the Court having original jurisdiction and also by the Court to which the case has been committed or transferred for trial.
17. I, therefore, do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist. The revision is devoid of any force and deserves to be dismissed.
18. In the result the revision fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.