Point of Law: Power under Section 319 of the Code to summon even those persons who are not named in the charge-sheet to appear and face trial, being unquestionable and the object of the provision being not to allow a person who deserves to be tried to go scot-free by being not arraigned in the trial inspite of possibility of his complicity which can be gathered from the evidence during the course of trial, the order passed under Section 319 of the Code summoning the revisionist does not contain any material error so as to warrant inference.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Kamal Dev Rai, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Arvind Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite party.

2. The present criminal revision has been filed seeking to set aside the judgment and order dated 17.11.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Mainpuri in Session Trial No. 316 of 2014 (State vs. Anoj Kumar), under Sections 307, 504 I.P.C., Police Station-Kishni, District-Mainpuri, arising out of Case Crime No. 266 of 2014, on the application of the opposite party no.2 filed under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, The Code.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has sought to assail the order passed by the court below by referring to the factual aspects of the case to contend that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in the criminal case. He has submitted that the jurisdiction under Section 319 of the Code is to be exercised in an extra-ordinary situation where there is a strong possibility of the conviction of the accused, who is proposed to be summoned, and the powers are not to be exercised in a routine manner. It is further pointed out that the Investigating Officer did not find any material against the revisionist and no charge-sheet having been submitted against him, there was no further material on the basis of which the trial court could have summoned the revisionist.

4. Learned Additional Government Advocate-I has controverted the assertions made by the counsel for the revisionist by drawing attention to the fact that the revisionist herein was named in the FIR and as per the FIR version he was assigned a specific role. Attention has been drawn to the fact that the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 during the course of trial have pointed to the complicity of the revisionist and his clear role in the incident. It is also contended that the testimony before the trial judge would have to be given more weight than the report submitted by the Investigating Officer pursuant to the investigation.

5. The ambit and scope of the powers of the Magistrate under Section 319 of the Code were considered in the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92. Referring to the object of the provision it was held that the object of the provision is that the real culprit should not get away unpunished and in a situation where the investigating agency for any reason does not array one of the real culprits as an accused, the court is not powerless in calling the said accused to face trial. It was stated thus :-

“8. The constitutional mandate under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 provides a protective umbrella for the smooth administration of justice making adequate provisions to ensure a fair and efficacious trial so that the accused does not get prejudiced after the law has been put into motion to try him for the offence but at the same time also gives equal protection to victims and to society at large to ensure that the guilty does not get away from the clutches of law. For the empowerment of the courts to ensure that the criminal administration of justice works properly, the law was appropriately codified and modified by the legislature under CrPC indicating as to how the courts should proceed in order to ultimately find out the truth so that an innocent does not get punished but at the same time, the guilty are brought to book under the law. It is these ideals as enshrined under the Constitution and our laws that have led to several decisions, whereby innovating methods and progressive tools have been forged to find out the real truth and to ensure that the guilty does not go unpunished.

9. The presumption of innocence is the general law of the land as every man is presumed to be innocent unless proven to be guilty. Alternatively, certain statutory presumptions in relation to certain class of offences have been raised against the accused whereby the