AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vinod Prasad, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A.
In pursuance of my order dated 2.2.2007, Sri A. Kumar Singh Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 2, Kanpur Dehat is personally present before this Court. He has made a statement that due to wrong reading of the text book written by Sri D.K. Basu that the mistake has been committed by him in acquitting the co accused and the present revisionists of the present case and then directing the trial court to proceed against the present revisionist who were the co accused in that very trial and was present before the trial Judge. In view of the said statement I am of the opinion that no further action should be taken against the Presiding Officer in respect of the impugned order.
I have heard Sri R.C. Yadav learned Counsel for the revisionists in support of this revision as well as Smt. Usha Kiran and A.G.A. in opposition.
The contention of the revisionists is that since in this case co accused were convicted the same day on which the order u/s 319 Cr.P.C. was passed against the revisionists. Therefore, the summoning order passed against the revisionists is bad in law as the revisionists cannot be tried along with other co accused which is required u/s 319 Cr.P.C. Learned Counsel contended that on the plain reading of Section 319 Cr.P.C. the trial of newly added accused should have been concluded along with already existing accused persons.
Learned Counsel further contended that on the earlier occasion also the revisionists were entitled to be summoned u/s 319 Cr.P.C. but the efforts of the prosecution at that time failed, not once but twice also, which is in negative to the fact that the revisionists are being harassed maliciously by the prosecution.
Learned A.G.A. on the other hand contended that even if the impugned order is not justified on the plain reading of Section 319 Cr.P.C, even then is only a procedural error and the said error does not amount to an illegality. In his submission it is such an error, which is curable. He further contended that even though the revisionists should have been tried along with the other co accused and the order of acquittal should not have been passed but that does not mean that the summoning order of the revisionists be quashed. I have considered the submissions raised by both the sides. No doubt in this matter the Presiding Officer has committed error in disposing of the sessions trial in respect of the co-accused persons but that is no ground to quash the summoning order which has been passed before the pronouncement of the judgment in respect of present revisionists. Therefore, I am not impressed by the submissions that the summoning order be set aside for the same reason. Power u/s 319 Cr.P.C. can be resorted to by the trial court at any point of time before pronouncement of the judgment. Moreover, in this matter the present revisionists have got the rights of claiming discharge u/s 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. before the trial Judge and the trail Judge is under legal mandate in view of Section 319(4) to re-hear the present revisionists. In such a view, I do not find any reason to quash the order of summoning. Consequently this revision lacks merit and deserves to be.
However, I direct the trial Judge to consider and disposed of the bail application of the revisionists in S.T. No. 388/05 u/s 319 Cr.P.C. and 498-A, 306 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Moosa Nagar, District Kanpur Dehat on the day it is moved after giving opportunity to the Public Prosecutor. This direction has been passed keeping in view that all the materials against the present revisionists, which are available with the trial Judge. Further Additional Sessions Judge is directed to consider and dispose of the discharge application of the revisionists if filed within a period of one month from the date of its filing.
With the aforesaid directions, this revision is dismissed.