Back
RAJ BEER SINGH
Mohd Kaleem – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent
ORDER :
(Raj Beer Singh, J.)
1. Heard Sri V.M. Jaidi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri M.J. Akhtar and Sri Imran Khan, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Sheshadri Tivedi, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and 3 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 30.11.2021, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Muzaffarnagar, in Session Trial No.414 of 2018 (State vs. Dilshad and Others), under Sections 307, 302, 120-B, 147, 148 and 149 IPC, police station Kotwali Nagar, Muzaffarnagar, whereby, the application filed by the informant/revisionist Mohd Kaleem, under Section 319 Cr.P.C., for summoning of the opposite party No.2 and 3, namely, Rajendra and Mausam, has been rejected.
3. It has been argued by learned Senior Counsel for the revisionist that the impugned order is against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside. The Trial Court failed to follow the procedure for summoning the accused in exercise of its power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by inviting objections from the accused persons. It is well settled that while exer
The discretionary nature of the power under Section 319 CrPC and the requirement of strong and cogent evidence to summon additional accused during trial.
The court held that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. must be exercised with strong evidence and cannot be invoked after the trial of co-accused has concluded.
The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and should be exercised sparingly based on strong and cogent evidence, and the test for summoning a person is one which is more than prima facie c....
For invoking power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. inter alia includes the principle that only when strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. ....
The court emphasized the need to ensure that the actual perpetrators of the crime are correctly booked and that the innocents are not arraigned to stand trial, and held that the conclusion of trial a....
Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction cannot embark upon the inquiry with regard to facts of the case, particularly when the courts below had applied its mind and taken a view, which does ....
The court clarified that under Section 319 Cr.P.C., a prima facie case is sufficient for summoning additional accused, emphasizing that evidence merits are to be assessed during the trial.
The court affirmed that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. must be exercised before the conclusion of trial and sentencing, allowing for the summoning of additional accused based on evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
