Naksu and others vs State of U.P. and another

Shri Kant Tripathi,J.

Heard the learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

The revisionists Naksu and others have preferred this revision against the order dated 19.8.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Badaun in Special Session Trial No. 119 of 2000 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has summoned the revisionists under section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial in regard to the offences triable under sections 147, 148, 326/149, 307/149 and sections 3 (2) 5 of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

It may not be out of context to mention that all the revisionists were named in the FIR but police during the investigation exonerated them and did not file any charge sheet against them. During the trial P.W. 1 Ram Pal and P.W. 2 Ram Chandra who are said to be eye witnesses of the occurrence were examined. These two witnesses have supported involvement of the revisionists in the commission of the offences detailed above. The learned Lower Court placing reliance on the statements of these two witnesses found that there were sufficient materials against the revisionists to summon them for trial alongwith other accused. Accordingly the learned Additional Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order summoning the appellants.

The learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the revisionists were exonerated during the investigation on the basis of the same evidence and as such there was no justification to summon them during the trial.

In my opinion the revision has no substance in view of the fact that P.W.1 Ram Pal and P.W. 2 Ram Chandra have supported the prosecution story so far as the involvement of the revisionists is concerned.

It is settled law that the power under section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised either on an application made to the court or by the court suo moto. The court has power under section 319 Cr.P.C. to proceed against any person not shown to an accused if it appears from the evidence that such person has also committed an offence for which he can be tried together with the accused. The main object under lying section 319 Cr.P.C. is that the whole case against all accused should be tried and disposed of not only expeditiously but also simultaneously. Justice and convenience both require that cognizance against the newly added accused should be taken in the same cease and in the same manner as against the original accused. It is, therefore, a matter of discretion of the court to summon an accused under section 319 Cr.P.C.

The learned counsel for the revisionists further submitted that all the accused persons are already on bail. The Trial Court may be directed to consider the bail prayer of the revisionists expeditiously in the light of the settled norms. It is, therefore, directed that if the revisionists surrender before the lower court within 30 days from today, their bail prayer shall be considered expeditiously, if possible, on the same day and their bail matters shall be dealt with in accordance with the directions contained in the cases of Smt. Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. 2005 Cr.L.J.577 and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.l (Crl. Appeal no. 538 of 2009, decided on 23.3.2009)

In case it is not possible to dispose of the bail application of the revisionists on the same day due to any reason, the court below may grant, till the disposal of their bail applications, interim bail to the revisionists as per the directions given by the Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.l (Crl. Appeal no. 538 of 2009, decided on 23.3.2009)

With the aforesaid directions, the revision is finally disposed of.