Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 3807 (ALL)

Manni Lal v. State Of U. P.

2009-12-17

AMAR SARAN

body2009
JUDGMENT: Amar Saran, J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Ram Ashish Pandey, holding brief of Sri R.L. Shukla, learned counsel for the complainant and learned Additional Government Advocate. 2. By means of this revision the revisionist has challenged an order dated 26.10.2007 passed by the Special Judge (DAA) Act, Etawah summoning the revisionist in exercise of powers under section 319 Cr.P.C. in a case under sections 394/302 IPC. 3. It is argued that the impugned order was passed only after the examination-in-chief of the P.W. 1 Ashish Kumar and that in the case of Mohd . Shafi Vs. Mohd Rafiq, 2007 (58) ACC 254, it has been held that the discretion to summon an accused under section 319 Cr.P.C. should be exercise after cross-examination. 4. Reliance was also placed by the learned counsel for the revisionist in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2009 (1) JIC 362 (SC), where the matter has been referred to a larger bench. 5. It may be noted that in the case of Hardeep Singh (Supra), the view taken in Mohd Shafi (Supra) has been approved of and the matter was referred to a larger Bench. Significantly, in Hardeep Singh's case the trial pursuant to the order under section 319 Cr.P.C. was not kept pending against the accused and only the question was referred to the Larger Bench. 6. I have also held in Criminal Revision No. 3550 of 2009 (Juned Pahalwan Vs. State of UP and another), decided on13.10.2009 that merely because the matter has been referred to the Larger Bench by a Division Bench, cannot give rise to ipso facto stay of the trial against particular accused and I have examined the same contention regarding Hardeep Singh's case. 7. This is a case under section 302/394 IPC and it cannot be said at this stage that there is no ground for proceeding with the trial. 8. I see no illegality in the order of the Magistrate as under section 319 Cr.P.C., it is only to be seen whether it appears from the evidence that any other person not being an accused is also involved in the offence. 9. For what has been indicated herein above the revision is dismised. 10. 8. I see no illegality in the order of the Magistrate as under section 319 Cr.P.C., it is only to be seen whether it appears from the evidence that any other person not being an accused is also involved in the offence. 9. For what has been indicated herein above the revision is dismised. 10. However, it is provided that if the revisionist appears before the court concerned in pursuance of the aforesaid order and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be heard and disposed of in accordance with the observations of Full Bench of this Court in Amarawati Vs. State of UP, 2004(7) ALR 290 and also considering the fact that other co-accused have been bailed out.