ORDER :

(Gajendra Kumar, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present criminal appeal has been filed against the order dated 15.01.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, Azamgarh (SC/ST Act), in S.T. No.200 of 2014, arising out of Case Crime No.241 of 2013, under Sections 147, 149, 302, 201, 120-B, 404 IPC and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Mehnazpur, District Azamgarh, whereby the appellant has been summoned by the court below in exercise of powers under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has sought to assail the order passed by the court below by referring to the factual aspects of the case to contend that the appellant 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 appellant 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 appellant.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has controverted the assertions made by the counsel for the appellant by drawing attention to the fact that testimony of PW-1 during the course of trial has pointed to the complicity of the appellant 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. Rival contentions fall for consideration.

6. 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 and others; (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 presumption of guilt prevails till the accused discharges his burden upon an onus being cast upon him under the law to prove himself to be innocent