Renu Dixit vs State of U.P. and Others

Shri Kant Tripathi, J.—Counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondents No. 2 to 4 is taken on record.

Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the Respondent No. 1 and Mr. Amit Sinha for the Respondents No. 2 to 4 and perused the record.

This revision has been filed against the order dated 1.10.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Mainpuri in S.T. No. 198 of 2010, State v. Sukhendra Singh and Ors., whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the application for summoning additional accused (Respondents No. 2 to 4) u/s 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The revisionist is the complainant.

The learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted that witnesses Smt. Renu Dixit, Smt. Gita Mishra and Rajesh Chauhan had witnessed during the trial but the learned Additional Sessions Judge without giving due consideration to their statements, rejected the application after perusing the statements recorded during the investigation,

However, it is well settled that while passing a summoning order u/s 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, the trial Court has to consider the evidences adduced during the inquiry or trial and to see whether or not the evidence, if uncontroverted, would reasonably lead to conviction to the person sought to be summoned. If the evidence is not of such quality the order u/s 319 Code of Criminal Procedure can not be passed. Therefore, the prayer for summoning the revisionist u/s 319 Code of Criminal Procedure is required to be considered in this perspective. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, admittedly, has not considered the matter in light of the evidence adduced during the trial, therefore, the order of the learned trial Court suffers from the material error of law.

It may also be mentioned that the power u/s 319 Code of Criminal Procedure has to be exercised sparingly in exceptional matter when the evidence adduced in support of the application u/s 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, if uncontroverted, would reasonably lead to conviction of the revisionist and this principle has been propounded in several decisions by the Apex Court and also by this Court.

In the case of Rajol v. State of U.P. 2010 (5) ADJ 628, this Court has laid down the following guidelines:

In the cases of Sarabjeet (Supra), Brindawan Das, Michael Machado (supra) and Krishnappa (supra), it has been clearly held that summoning order should be passed only when the evidence, if uncontroverted, is of such a nature as to reasonably lead to conviction of the person sought to be summoned. The standard of evidence required for summoning an additional accused should be higher than the evidence required for framing charges because the jurisdiction u/s 319 Code of Criminal Procedure is to be exercised sparingly in an extra ordinary situation. Whether or not any evidence is of such a quality as to record conviction if it remains uncontroverted, is a variable question depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard. However, the Court considering the evidence for the purpose of Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure is not legally required to evaluate the evidence as it is ordinarily done while rendering the final judgment but the Court has to see whether or not, the evidence on record appeals to the reason for the purposes of Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure and the story narrated by the witnesses against the person sought to be summoned is not improbable and absurd and a conviction is possible on such statements, if uncontroverted. A non observance of this legal requirement would render the summoning order illegal.

Therefore, the revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 1.10.2010 is set aside. The learned Additional Sessions Judge is directed to reconsider the application in the light of the observations made hereinabove and pass an appropriate order afresh in accordance with law.