ORDER
K.N. Ojha, J.
1. Heard Sri Rajesh Pathik, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A.
2. The revision is being decided at the admission stage.
3. Instant criminal revision has been preferred by accused Mohan Singh against order dated 24-9-2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandausi, district Moradabad in which the revisionist has been summoned as an accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to face Sessions Trial No. 235 of 2003 under Sections 307 read with Section 34, I.P.C., 323, 504 and 506, I.P.C. police station Bahjoi district Moradabad.
4. In the impugned order dated 24-9-2003, it has been observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that accused Dinesh and Suresh appeared in the Court. Statement of PW 1 Mahendra resident of village Fatehpur, police station Bahjoi district Moradabad was recorded who stated that revisionist Mohan armed with pharsa caused injuries to his son Rajnesh at about 9.00 p.m. in the month of Sept. It was further observed that Mohan was named in the F.I.R., but charge-sheet was not submitted against him. Since prima facie case was made out under Section 307 reads with Sections 34, 323, 504 and 506, I.P.C. against Mohan on the basis of the statement of PW. 1 Mahendra, therefore, the application moved for summoning co-accused Mohan under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was allowed.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that it is only the statement of witness recorded by the Addl. Sessions Judge which can be made basis for summoning the person as an accused in the Sessions Trial, but a person cannot be summoned under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of F.I.R. or any paper prepared during investigation. It is also submitted that since in this case, accused has been summoned on the basis of the F.I.R., therefore, the order deserves to be set aside. In support of this contention judgment delivered by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 2463 of 2003 Satyavir Singh v. State of U.P. has been cited in which it has been held that the accused was summoned under Section 319, Cr.P.C. on the basis of the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. during the course of investigation which was unwarranted and not proper, therefore, the order summoning the accused was set aside.
6. The revisionist also relied on (1998) 6 JT (SC) 512 : (AIR 1998 SC 3148) : (1998 Cri LJ 4618), Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab in which Hon’ble the Apex Court has laid down that “now it is well neigh settled that “evidence” envisaged in Section 319 of the Code is the evidence tendered during trial of the case if the offence is triable by a Court of Sessions. The material placed before the committal court cannot be treated as evidence collected during enquiry or trial. The Court of Sessions can deal only with the accused who is referred to in Section 209, Cr.P.C. The accused who can appear or can be brought before a Sessions Court at that stage is only that accused who is referred to in Section 209, so from the stage of committal till the Sessions Court reaches the stage Indicated in Section 230 of the Code, that Court can deal with only the accused referred to in Section 209 of the Code. There is no Intermediary stage till then for the Sessions Court to add any other person to the array of the accused. The only other stage when the Court is empowered to add any other person to the array of the accused is after reaching evidence collection when powers under Section 319 of the Code can be invoked”. Thus, from the law laid down by Hon’ble the Apex Court and this Court is that a person cannot be summoned as an accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Session Court on the basis of F.I.R. or other papers prepared during investigation. If charge is framed, prosecution witnesses are summoned and their statement are recorded and from the statement of such witnesses prima facie case is made out against a person showing involvement in the commission of the crime, the Sessions Court can summon such accused under Section 319, Cr.P.C. In Ranjit Singh’s case, it has been held by Hon’ble the Apex Court that “the Sessions Court is not altogether powerless to deal with such situations to prevent miscarriage of justice. The Impugned order dated 24-9-2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandausi district Moradabad in Sessions Trial No. 235 of 2003 State v. Satendra Singh shows that it was the description of fact that F.I.R. was lodged against the revisionist. In F.I.R. there were other accused also, but charge-sheet was not submitted. Therefore, the charge was not framed, but when the statement of Mahendra Singh father of the victim and Informant of the case was recorded in detail and the witness made statement that the occurrence had taken place three years before in the month of Sept. at about 9.00 p.m. when he was standing at his door, Satendra, Suresh, Mohan Singh and Dinesh came there. Revisionist Mohan was armed with pharsa, Suresh was armed with iron rod, Satendra and Dinesh were armed with lathis. First they started insulting language and when PW 1 Mahendra Singh prohibited from doing so, they started to cause injury. On his alarm his son Rajhesh and nephew Jaipal reached there.” They were also Injured and the revisionist Mohan caused injury to Rajnesh with Pharsa. When the persons of the village reached there, the accused left the place threatening with dire consequences. The motive was also specified that two months before, the dispute had taken place between the children of the complainant and the accused persons. He got F.I.R. written by Jagdish and lodged F.I.R. at the police station. The fact and specific role of the revisionist was stated by the PW 1 Mahendra. It was recorded in many pages by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. It is on the basis of this statement that the revisionist was summoned under Section 319, Cr.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has written in the impugned order that even though the revisionist was named in the F.I.R but charge-sheet was not submitted against him, but when the statement of PW 1 was recorded, he made statement and prima facie case is made out against the revisionist. Thus, it is the statement of PW 1 Mahendra who was victim, injured and Informant of the case on the basis of which the revisionist has been summoned under Section 319, Cr.P.C. to face Sessions Trial as an accused. The revisionist has not been
summoned on the basis of the F.I.R, or any paper prepared during Investigation. Therefore, no Illegality, material Irregularity or jurisdictional error has been committed in the impugned order.
7. Instant revision cannot be admitted and is dismissed.
