JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.K. Jain, J.—Heard Sri Anurag Upadhyay, holding brief of Sri Ramesh Sinha, learned Counsel for the revisionists, Sri Vijay Singh Senger, learned Counsel for the opposite party, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. Revisionists Bhagat Singh, Ramvir Singh, Amar Singh, Bajrang Singh and Raja Singh have made this revision application aggrieved by the order dated 19.3.2004 and 28.1.2004, passed by Special Judge, (EC Act), Orai in S.T. No. 176 of 2003, State v. Ranvir Singh and others by which the revisionists have been summoned to face trial under Section 328/304 I.P.C. on the basis of application moved by the Public Prosecutor under Section 319, Cr.P.C. 3. The facts leading to the filing of this revision in brief are that Smt. Bittan Devi wife of Sri Prithvi Singh resident of Kanharpur P.S. Raider, District Jalaun on 21-6-2001 at 2.10 p.m. filed written report at P.S. Raider, District Jalaun stating therein that her husband is 75 years old. They are issueless. Prithvi Singh has six bighas of land in village Isuliya within the circle of P.S. Ayana, District Auraiya and he also owns six bighas of land of village Kanharpur. Accused Bhagat Singh and his son accused Ramvir Singh have an evil eye on this land. A month earlier to this report Ramvir and Ranvir forcibly took Prithvi Singh to Auraiya and in collusion of Registrar got a forged will executed by Prithvi Singh in favour of Ramvir. Thereafter they hatched conspiracy, administered some poisonous substance to Prithvi Singh and made him disappeared w.e.f. 15-6-2001. Bhagat Singh, Ramvir, Ranvir, Amar Singh, Bajrang Singh and Raja Singh were instrumental in this occurrence. She further prayed for release of her husband from the custody of the accused persons. It appears that Prithvi Singh died on 5-7-2001. The police investigated the case, recorded the statement of deceased Prithvi Singh during investigation. After investigation charge-sheet was filed against co-accused Ranvir Singh only on 16.6.2002 as the participation in the alleged incident of the revisionist were found to be false and final report was submitted against them. First informant Smt. Bittan Devi filed a protest petition which was rejected on 10.9.2003 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Orai. Copy of that order has been annexed as Annexure-9 to the revision petition. First informant Smt. Bittan Devi filed a protest petition which was rejected on 10.9.2003 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Orai. Copy of that order has been annexed as Annexure-9 to the revision petition. During trial Court of Special Judge EC Act, Orai recorded the statement of Smt. Bittan Devi, first informant in which she named the revisionist as accused. Thereafter the Public Prosecutor on 28.1.2004 moved an application under Section 319, Cr.P.C. for summoning the revisionist as accused for offence under Sections 328 and 304, I.P.C. The trial Court vide impugned order dated 28-1-04 summoned the revisionist after allowing the application of the Public Prosecutor. 4. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has contended that the trial Court erred in passing the impugned order as it has been passed only on the basis of examination-in-chief of the first informant Smt. Bittan Devi and Smt. Bittan Devi as is clear from the averment of the first information report is not an eye-witness of the occurrence. 5. Per contra learned Counsel for the opposite party and learned AGA supported the order. 6. Perusal of the record goes to show that the revisionists have been summoned by the Court below exercising the power under Section 319 (1), Cr.P.C. merely on the basis of statement of the complainant Smt. Bittan Devi. Smt. Bittan Devi, admittedly, is not an eye-witness of the incident which is alleged to have taken place with her husband Prithvi Singh. She was not cross examined by accused when this application under Section 319, Cr.P.C. was made. 7. Since she is not an eye-witness of the occurrence and there was no other incriminating and substantive evidence at the time of summoning the accused/revisionists on the application under Section 319, Cr.P.C. to show their involvement in the occurrence, I am of the view of that the Court below illegally exercised the powers vested in it under Section 319, Cr.P.C. 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and others, 1983 (1) SCC 2, held that : “In these circumstances, therefore, if the prosecution can at any stage produce evidence which satisfies the Court that the other accused or those who have not been arrayed as accused against whom proceedings have been quashed have also committed the offence, the Court can take cognizance against them and try them along with the other accused. But, we would hasten to add that this is really an extraordinary power which is conferred on the Court and should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against the other person against whom action has not been taken.” 9. When I test the impugned order in the light of observation made above by Hon’ble Supreme Court, I find that there was no evidence except the bald statement of the complainant, who is not an eye witness of the occurrence on the basis of which revisionists have been summoned. 10. In the result the revision is allowed. Impugned order dated 19.3.2004 and 28.1.2004 passed by Special Judge (EC Act), Orai in S.T. No. 176/03, State v. Ranvir Singh and others on application under Section, 319, Cr.P.C. is hereby set aside. The application dated 28.1.2004 moved by Public Prosecutor under Section 319, Cr. P.C. is rejected. 11. Office to send copy of this order to the Court concerned within a week for information and necessary action. ————