Devendra Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another
2011 Latest Caselaw 3828 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?AFR
 
Court No. - 50
 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3281 of 2011
 
Petitioner :- Devendra Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
 
Petitioner Counsel :- B.P. Singh
 
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate
 
Hon'ble S.C. Agarwal,J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State.

This revision is directed against the order dated 13.7.2011 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 8 in S.T. No. 826 of 2010, State Vs. Collector Singh and others, P.S. Usawan, District- Budaun, whereby on the application of the complainant under Section under section 319 Cr.P.C., the revisionist -Devendra Singh was summoned to face trial under Sections 452, 308/34, 323/34, 504, 506 IPC.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the matter was investigated twice but even the injured did not name the revisionist and there is no material available in the case diary against the revisionist and, therefore, learned Addl. Sessions Judge was not justified in summoning the revisionist under Section under section 319 Cr.P.C.

Learned AGA submits that an order under Section under section 319 Cr.P.C. can be passed only on the basis of evidence available on record and the material available in the case diary cannot be looked into for the purposes of summoning a person under Section under section 319 Cr.P.C.

The contention is that the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are not covered by the definition of the word evidence.

The summoning order has been passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge on the basis of statements of Pushpal Singh (P.W.-1), Pradeep Kumar Singh (P.W.-2) and Vipin (P.W.-3). All the three witnesses are the injured witnesses. They have clearly spoken about the involvement of the revisionist in the crime. The revisionist was also named in the FIR. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge has recorded his satisfaction that the evidence is of such a nature, which may result in conviction of the revisionist.

Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality and does not require any interference by this Court. The accused persons are already on bail.

In these circumstances, the revision is disposed of with a direction that if the revisionist surrenders before the Magistrate concerned within three weeks from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail be considered and disposed of by the courts below keeping in view Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. 2004 (57) ALR 290 as affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).

If, for any reason, the disposal of the bail application on the same day is not possible, then the court below shall release the revisionist on interim bail till the final disposal of the bail application.

For a period of three weeks, no coercive steps shall be taken against the revisionist.

Order Date :- 17.8.2011

KU