Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1756 of 2019
Revisionist :- Ram Bahadur
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Devendra Tiwari Deva Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
By means of the present revision, present revisionist is assailing the order dated 23.02.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge/F.T.C. New, Chitrakoot in S.T. No.10 of 2018 (State vs. Basant Lal and others), under Sections 506, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Raipura, District Chitrakoot.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has drawn the attention towards the judgement dated 09.04.2019 passed by this Court and claiming parity with this order.
Submission made by the counsel that though the revisionist is named in the F.I.R. on the basis of the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. but police after throwing entire evidence on record had dropped the name from the charge sheet. Consequently, learned trial Judge by exercising his power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has summoned the revisionist.
I have gone through the order impugned while deciding the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the learned trial Judge has not taken into account evidence collected by the police during the investigation as a mandatory requirement provided in the case of Brijendra Singh and other vs. State of Rajasthan reported (2017) 7 SCC 706.
Learned counsel for the revisionist further pointed out that the impugned order suffers from the vice of not recording the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge.
It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that the powers conferred under Section 319 Cr.P.C. are extraordinary powers which has to be exercised sparingly and only after collecting the cogent materials available on record. The purpose of prima-facie opinion as to whether which is to inform for exercise of powers for require stronger evidence than mere probability of complicity of a person. The text to be applied is the one which is more than a prima-facie case as, examined at the time of framing of the charges but not of a satisfaction to the extent that the evidence, if goes rebutted would lead to conviction of that accused. These are basic parameters and the trial Judge ought to have taken into account by passing the impugned order.
Under the circumstances, I have got no hesitation that the impugned order is much short of the ratio laid down in the celebrated judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court. I hereby direct the learned trial Judge to reconsider and revisit the entire issues and decide the matter in the light of the ratio laid down in the case of Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and others reported (2014) 3 SCc 92, Brijendra Singh and others vs. State of Rajasthan reported (2017) 7 SCC 706, Labhuii Amratji Thakor and others vs. State of Grjarat and antoher AIR 2019 SC 734 and Sugreev Kumar vs. State of Punjab and others 2019 SCC Online SC 390 within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Accordingly, the present revision is disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019 Jitendra