Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 230 (ALL)

SURESH SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-01-17

PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2017
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.—This revision has been preferred against the order dated 18.9.1990 passed by the Court 1st ACJM, Mainpuri in criminal appeal No. 162 of 1990 (State v. Ram Asrey and others) under Section 323/325/34 IPC, P.S. Bewar, District Mainpur, by which revisionist Suresh Singh was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The impugned order reads as under: “Hd, Suresh Singh is summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for offence under Section 323/325/34 IPC fixed 17.10.90 for appearance.” 2. From perusal of impugned order, this submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is found acceptable that this is not speaking and reasoned order, which shows that no application of judicial mind. 3. It is expected from the trial Court that at the time of passing order of cognizance or passing order of summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C., judicial mind should be applied and reasoned order should not be passed. Section 319 reads that where, in the course of any enquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. 4. The word “appears” is pertinent. This shows that there must something before the Court on the basis of which Court reaches to conclusion that there may be commission of any offence by accused being summoned for trial. In present matter, there is nothing in the impugned order which may show that there was any evidence on the basis of which it appeared to trial Court appropriate to pass impugned order to summon the revisionist Suresh Singh for offence mentioned in the order. Therefore, this order is liable to be quashed. However, it is observed that if trial Court feels that revisionist may be summoned for trial, then it may pass appropriate reasoned and speaking order. 5. For the reasons discussed above, this revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.9.1990 is quashed. 6. Let copy of this judgement be communicated to the trial Court for ensuring compliance.