IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the power to summon additional accused under Section 319 of the CrPC is contingent upon the existence of prima facie evidence presented during the trial, and that the trial court must consider all relevant evidence, including witness statements, in making its determination.

JUDGMENT :

Abdul Moin, J.

1. Heard Sri Krishna Gopal, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Sri Anurag Verma, the learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents and perused the record.

2. Instant revision under Section 438/442 B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed against the order dated 15.05.2024 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/FTC-2nd, Bahraich in Criminal Case No.321 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No.117 of 2018, under Sections 307, 452, 323 and 506 IPC, Police Station Herdi, District Bahraich whereby the revisionist has been summoned by exercising the powers under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Code').

3. Contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that though the name of the revisionist found place in the FIR that had been lodged by respondent No.2, yet in the charge-sheet that had been filed by the investigating officer dated 13.07.2018, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the revision, he was not named. Thereafter upon an application being filed by the respondent No.2, the learned court has passed the order impugned whereby the revisionist has been summoned.

4. Placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the cases of Brijendra Singh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan, (2017) 7 SCC 706 as well as Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 92, the argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the learned court has only considered the statements of the Prosecution Witnesses (hereinafter referred to as 'P.Ws.') 1 to 3 while passing the order impugned but has failed to consider the material that had been gathered by the enquiry officer whereby the revisionist had not been named and this 'evidence' should also have been considered by the learned court while passing the order impugned. He contends that non consideration of the said material, as gathered by the investigating officer, while passing the order impugned, thus vitiates the impugned order and therefore, it deserves to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, Shri Anurag Verma, learned A.G.A. has placed reliance on the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hardeep Singh (supra) as well as the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases Yashodhan Singh & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2023) 9 SCC 108 and Manjeet Singh vs. State of Haryana & Ors., (2021) 8 SCC 321 to contend that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Brijendra Singh (supra) has been considered in the judgment in the case of Yashodhan Singh (supra).

6. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Mohd. Rafiq vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. in Criminal Revision No.772 of 2024, decided on 11.07.2024, to contend that power of summoning as granted to the court under the provisions of Section 319 of the Code has been considered threadbare by this court.

7. Placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment, the argument of the learned A.G.A. is that there is no infirmity in the order impugned whereby the learned court has considered the statements of the P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 and has been of the view that prima facie a case is made out against the revisionist while passing the impugned order and thus there is no infirmity in the impugned order.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it emerges that after the FIR had been lodged by respondent No.2 against various persons including the revisionist namely Chetram, the investigating officer submitted his report dated 13.07.2018 whereby the name of the revisionist does not find place.

9. Upon an application under Section 319 of the Code being filed by the respondent No.2, learned court has summoned the revisionist after considering the statements of the P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 to find that prima facie a case is made out for summoning the revisionist and hence the instant revision.

10. The sheet anchor of the argument of the learned counsel for