Hon’ble Shashi Kant, J.—Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3.

2. Since, after exchange of counter and rejoinder-affidavit pleadings are complete, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties this revision is being finally heard and decided.

3. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (In short ‘Cr.P.C.’) has been filed against the order dated 27.9.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Budaun in S.T. No. 818 of 2003 - State v. Rajendra and others, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (In short ‘I.P.C.’), whereby application (98-Ka) under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist for summoning of additional accused was rejected.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that:

4.1 While passing the impugned order, the Lower Court has not applied its judicial mind and passed an illegal order. The lower Court has failed to consider that specific role has been assigned to the proposed accused. They were nominated in the FIR and all the witnesses examined by the prosecution i.e. complainant-revisionists P.W. 1 Balbeer, P.W. 2 Kishan Pal, P.W. 3 Ramveer and PW-4 Jogendra have also specified their roles in their respective statements recorded before the Trial Court.

4.2 Though earlier application filed by the complainant-revisionist under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was rejected by the Lower Court but it will not affect the fate of the subsequent application moved by the complainant revisionist because earlier application was rejected on the ground that till that time cross-examination of the complainant-revisionist was not started and other witnesses were also not examined. But now the witnesses of facts, P.W. 1,P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and PW-4 were examined and they were cross-examined by the defence.

4.3 The delay which has been caused in moving the application is due to time consumed in the examination of the prosecution witnesses and their cross-examination.

4.4 To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance on a judgment in the case of Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, 2013(85) ACC 313.

5. Per contra, Sri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for O.P. Nos. 2 and 3, controverting the above submissions of the learned counsel for the revisionist urged that:

5.1 Admittedly, earlier application filed by the complainant-revisionist under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was heard and rejected on merits vide order dated 3.8.2006.

5.2 After completion of the evidence of the prosecution, the case was fixed on 23.9.2013 for recording the statements of accused respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and subsequent to that second application under Section 319 Cr.PC. has been filed for summoning of O.P. Nos. 2 and 3, which is not maintainable.

5.3 The Lower Court has passed a perfectly just and legal order, recording sufficient reasons for passing the same alongwith discussion of the relevant case laws as such there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order.

5.4 The revision lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have given my careful consideration to the rival arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. From perusal of impugned judgment and order dated 27.9.2013, passed on the earlier application of the revisionist under Section 319 Cr.P.C. it is clear that earlier application filed by the complainant revisionist was rejected on the ground that prosecution witness was not cross-examined by the defence, but now that defect has been cured by examination and cross-examination of prosecution witnesses namely PW 1 - Balveer, PW 2 - Krishanpal, PW 3 - Ramveer and PW-4 Jogendra, as such rejection of earlier application of the complainant revisionist under Section 319 Cr.P.C. will not affect the merits of second application of the complainant moved under Section 319 Cr.PC.