Suresh Chandra Dixit vs State of U.P. and Another

P.K. Jain, J.—Heard Sri Apul Misra, learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A.

A report in Crime No. 215/95 u/s 302 was registered before police station Bhojipura, Bareilly and revisionist Suresh Chandra Dixit was nominated as one of the accused who had participated in actual commission of the crime. The police investigated the case and charge-sheeted five accused persons and at the same time, submitted final report against the revisionist. After the case was committed to the Court of Session, some witnesses were examined in the trial court and after going through the evidence of these witnesses, the trial court summoned the applicant u/s 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, by order dated 8.7.1997. It is this order which has been challenged in this revision.

Having heard learned Counsel for the revisionist I find no merit in the revision.

The sole contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionist is that u/s 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, only a person who is not an accused of the offence will be summoned by the trial court. His contention is that the revisionist was nominated in the F.I.R. and even though the final report was accepted by the Magistrate, he continues to be an accused. I do not agree with this contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionist. Once after acceptance of the final report an accused nominated in the first information report is exonerated, he does not continue to be an accused. It is true that u/s 319(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, the trial court may summon any person not being an accused if the court finds that such person has also committed an offence and he can be tried with other accused persons before the court. In the instant case, the revisionist was not an accused before the trial court since he had already been exonerated of the offences against him on submission and acceptance of the final report against him. Learned Counsel also contends that after the final report was submitted, no protest petition was filed nor any revision against the acceptance of the final report was filed. May it be so, that does not oust the jurisdiction of the trial court from summoning any person if the court finds from the evidence before it that such person has also committed offence for which he could be tried with other accused persons before the trial court.

There being no merit in this revision, it is summarily dismissed.