Ram Saran and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

V.D. Chaturvedi, J.—None is present from the Petitioners'' side even on the revision of the list. The learned A.G.A. is also not prepared for want of his personal file. I have perused the record.

In this petition u/s 482, Cr. P.C. the order dated 25.10.1986 whereby the Petitioners Ram Saran and Ram Autar and one Ram Nath were summoned u/s 319, Cr. P.C. has been challenged.

The brief facts relating to this petition are that a report u/s 302, I.P.C. against Bhopal, Ram Saran, Ram Nath and Ram Autar was lodged by the complainant Sohan Lal for committing the murder of Badri. The Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet only against Bhopal. Neither the charge-sheet nor the Final report was submitted against the remaining three accused Ram Saran, Ram Nath and Ram Autar. The complainant therefore filed a Complaint Case No. 936 of 1986 against these 3 accused namely Ram Saran, Ram Nath and Ram Autar. It also appears from the record that during the course of investigation it was on the Investigating Officer''s application that the statements of the witnesses were recorded u/s 164, Cr. P.C. wherein the witnesses supported the prosecution case. Later, an application for amalgamation of the complaint case was moved by the complainant. After amalgamation of the complaint case, the Magistrate passed the impugned order dated 25.10.1986. He summoned the Petitioners Ram Saran and Ram Autar and one Ram Nath u/s 319, Cr. P.C. on the basis of the statements of the witnesses recorded u/s 164, Cr. P.C. and the evidence recorded under Sections 200 and 202, Cr. P.C. The statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202, Cr. P.C. as well as the statements recorded u/s 164, Cr. P.C. are well within the definition of evidence. It is on the basis of such evidence that it appeared to the Magistrate that Ram Nath, Ram Saran and Ram Autar have also committed the offence alongwith Bhopal and that they should be tried together with Bhopal hence he summoned these 3 persons. He, thus committed no error. The order u/s 319, Cr. P.C. may be passed even in an inquiry beside the trial. Thus the Magistrate, in passing the order dated 25.10.1986, committed no error of law. There is nothing in this petition to warrant interference in the order dated 25.10.1986 passed by the Magistrate or in the judgment dated 1.6.1987 given by Sri D. L. Sharma in Criminal Revision No. 225 of 1986 hence the petition is dismissed.

Certify the order of the court below within a fortnight.