The court clarified the procedure for summoning under Sec. 319 Cr. P. C. and emphasized the importance of issuing summon before resorting to coercive measures.

( 1 ) THIS revision has been preferred against the order dated 28-9-1999 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat in Special Session Trial No. 7 of 1999 summoning the applicant under Sec. 319 Cr. P. C. and issuing non-bailable warrant and process under Secs. 82/83 Cr. P. C. against him.

( 2 ) THE opposite party No. 2 lodged an F. I. R. against the applicant and some other persons under Secs. 147, 148, 149, 302 I. P. C. and Sec. 3 (2) (iv) SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. On the basis of above report a case at crime No. 50 of 1998 was registered. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against six persons. No charge sheet was submitted against applicant. After examination of P. W. 1 respondent No. 2 moved an application for summoning the applicant and one Lala Ram in the said case for trial along with the other accused on the ground that she had lodged report against them and the witnesses also disclosed their involvement in their statement under Sec. (sic) Cr. P. C. , but the police did not submit charge sheet against them.

( 3 ) LEARNED Special Judge on hearing learned counsel for the prosecution held that there was sufficient evidence on record to summon the above applicant and Lala Ram under Sec. 319 Cr. P. C. With these finding he allowed the application and summoned the applicant and Lala Ram for along with other accused. The above order has been challenged in this revision.

( 4 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. and the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and perused the record.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the applicant contended that the order of summoning the applicant under Sec. 319 Cr. P. C. was passed without completion of cross-examination of P. W. 1 and investigation against applicant was pending and that the applicant be given opportunity to file objection against the summoning order before the Trial Court. He also placed reliance on Single Judge decision of this Court in Shailendra v. State of U. P. 1999 ACC 441. On the other hand learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 contended that cross-examination of the witness is not essential for exercising power under Sec. 319 Cr. P. C. and there is no provision in the Cr. P. C. for filing objection by an accused summoned under Sec. 319 Cr. P. C.

( 6 ) HAVING heard the submission of the learned counsel for the parties I find no force in the above contention of applicants learned counsel.

( 7 ) SECTION 319 Cr. P. C. says that where, in the course of any inquiry, into or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.

( 8 ) IT was held by the Apex Court in the case of Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1979 (16) ACC 43 : (AIR 1979 SC 1876) (SC) that the expression "any person not being accused" occurring under Sec. 319 Cr. P. C. clearly covers any person, who is not being tried already by the Court and very purpose of enacting such a provision like S. 319 (1) clearly shows that even persons, who have been dropped by the police during investigation but against whom evidence showing their involvement in the offence comes before the criminal Court are included in the said case. The above view was repeated by the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi, 1983 (20) ACC 50 : (AIR 1983 SC 67) (SC ).

( 9 ) IN the instant case, the name of applicant was mentioned in the F. I. R. After investigation he was not challaned. In her statement before the Trial Court (P. W. 1) Smt. Shakuntala stated about involvement of the applicant in her evidence. Sec. 319 Cr. P. C. is meant only for determining whether the evidence recorded in the Court prima facie indicates that some person other than the accused facing trial has committed the offence