Santosh Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Bala Krishna Narayana, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA.

This revision is directed against the judgment order dated 07.01.2011 passed by Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court No. 2, Jaunpur in Sessions Trial No. 313 of 2010, under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Sarai Khwaja, District Jaunpur whereby the revisionist was summoned u/s 319 Code of Criminal Procedure to face trial.

Learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted that learned trial court had summoned the revisionist on the ground that there was sufficient evidence against the revisionist. It is submitted that learned trial court has not recorded his satisfaction that there exists a possibility that the accused so summoned, in all likelihood, would be convicted and thus, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

Per contra learned A.G.A. made his submissions in support of the impugned order.

I have examined the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and the other materials brought on record as well as the case law relied upon by the learned Counsel for the revisionists in support of his submissions.

In Mohd. Shafi v. Mohd. Rafiq and Anr. LVIII (2007) ACC 254, the Apex Court had held that before a Court exercising its discretionary jurisdiction in terms of Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, it must arrive at the satisfaction that there exists a possibility that the accused so summoned, is in all likelihood, liable to be convicted.

In Sarabjit Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr. (2010) 2 SCC 141, the Apex Court held that for exercising extra ordinary jurisdiction u/s 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, the Courts are required to apply stringent tests; one of the test being whether evidence on record is such which would reasonably lead to conviction of the person sought to be summoned and mere existence of a prima facie case may not serve the purpose. Since learned trial court has not recorded his satisfaction as above, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.

The application in revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 07.01.2011 is set aside. The learned Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court No. 2, Jaunpur is directed to decide the application u/s 319 Code of Criminal Procedure afresh in accordance with the directions of the Apex Court in the cases of Mohd. Shafi and Sarabjit (supra).