Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.

The revisionists were named in the first information report. However, upon investigation, the revisionists were not chargesheeted. During the trial PW1, namely, the complainant Asraf Ali was examined in chief who reiterated the contents of the first information report and submitted that the revisionists were involved in the commission of the crime. The trial court, considering the fact that the revisionists were named in the first information report which was corroborated by the statement of PW1 Asraf Ali held that there is a prima-facie involvement of the revisionists and, consequently, issued summons to the revisionists u/S 319 Cr.P.C. The revisionists, being aggrieved by the said summoning order, has filed the present criminal revision u/S 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. An interim order dated 19th August, 2008 was passed staying the operation of the order dated 1st August, 2008. As a result of the interim order, the trial against the revisionists could not proceed.

2. The learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the Court below has committed a manifest error in summoning the revisionists for standing trial as an additional accused although the