Rakesh Kumar vs State of U.P.

Bhagwan Din, J.—The facts in brief, giving rise to the present revision, are that one Manohar Lal Jha lodged a report at the police station, JokhYaun, District, Lalitpur against Devendra Kumar, Rakesh Kumar and Akhilesh Kumar with the allegations that they be laboured him with kicks and fists while he was on government duty and also threatened him to life.

On the basis of the written FIR, a case was registered at the police station under Sections 332/333/353/504/506, IPC vide crime No. 255 of 1998. The case was investigated and the Investigating Officer ultimately submitted a chargesheet against Devendra Kumar and Akhilesh Kumar. He did not forward Rakesh Kumar to the Court for trial.

The offence punishable under Section 333, IPC is triable by the Court of Sessions, hence the Magistrate after completing the legal formalities, provided under Section 207, Cr PC, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. After framing the charges, the trial of two above coaccused persons commenced. The examinationinchief of the complainant, Manohar Lal was recorded. He stated that the accused, Rakesh Kumar also was one of the assailants and, therefore, the Additional Sessions judge summoned him under Section 319, Cr PC. Against this order the present revision has been preferred.

Learned Counsel appearing for the revisionist contends that the evidence in reference to Section 319, Cr PC is complete only after crossexamination. Since the trial Court has summoned the revisionist on the basis of examinationinchief of the complainant, the order of summoning as such is bad in law.

Similar, controversy arose in number of criminal revisions and in the applications under Section 482, Cr PC an3 there had been difference of opinion in this regard. Hence, Hon''ble Mr. Justice S.K. Phaujdar referred the case formulating a question "whether the term ''evidence used in Section 319, Cr PC could only mean an evidence complete by crossexamination or if the Court can take action under this Section even on the statement made in examinationinchief of one or other witnesses." Similar, reference was also made by Hon''ble Mr. Justice C.A. Rahim.

The controversy now has been finally set tied by the Division Bench of this Court in Ram Copal and another v. State of UP., ACC 1999 (38) 123, answering the reference "The term ''evidence'' as used in Section 319, Cr PC does not mean evidence complete by cross examination and the Court can take action under Section 319, Cr PC even on the statement made in examinationinchief of one or more witnesses.

In the instant case, the trial Court has taken action and summoned the revisionist under Section 319, Cr PC on examinationinchief of the complainant.

In view of the above decision of this Court, I find that the trial Court has committed no error in summoning the revisionist on the examinationinchief of the complainant. The revision is, therefore, without merit.

It is accordingly dismissed.

Revision dismissed.