Subhash And Another vs State Of U.P.
2016 Latest Caselaw 7610 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?AFR 
 
Court No. - 52
 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3954 of 2016
 

 
Revisionist :- Subhash And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Mithilesh Kumar Shukla,Avanish Kumar Shukla
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Pratyush Kumar,J.

Heard Shri Mithilesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the revisionists.

By the present revision accused-revisionists questioned the correctness of the order dated 25.10.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Firozabad in S.T. No.502 of 2014 (State Vs. Subhash and others) whereby application under section 319, Cr.P.C. moved by the revisionists was rejected by the court below.

Submission of the learned counsel for the revisionists is that revisionists had applied under section 319, Cr.P.C. for summoning the son of the deceased Ashish, PW-1 and sole eye witness of the occurrence Vinod, PW-4 to be tried as co-accused along with them. He further submits that the revisionists had no motive to murder the deceased, but Ashish, PW-1 had motive in the form of procuring service under dying in harness rules and Vinod, PW-4 is the person with whom the deceased was seen alive for the last time, thus, against both these two persons there is evidence warranting their trial as accused along with the revisionists.

In the memo of revision Ashish and Vinod have not been impleaded as opposite parties, thus, array of party is defective. Under section 319, Cr.P.C. discretion has been given to the trial court to summon any person to be tried with the accused whose trial is pending before the Court. The question is whether accused themselves could request the Court to invoke jurisdiction to summon other person to be tried jointly with them. When the averments contained in the application dated 16.9.2016 is examined in this light, it appears that the revisionists want to substitute these two persons in their place. From the tenor of the application it can be inferred that they want to show that murder was committed by these two persons and not by the revisionists. The object behind section 319, Cr.P.C. is not to substitute the accused persons. It is only supplementary provision to add some persons, who have been left out by the Investigating Agency from facing the trial along with the original accused persons.Thus, the application moved before the court below was misconceived and not maintainable. For this reason the impugned order cannot be quashed.

Revision is dismissed accordingly.

The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude it preferably within six months.

Order Date :- 16.12.2016

T. Sinha