JUDGMENT : HON’BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J. 1. Heard Shri Vimlendu Tripathi, learned counsel assisted by Shri Gaurav Kumar Srivastava and Shri Satya Prakash Rai, Advocates appearing for the applicants in revision, Shri Rajesh Kumar Rao, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Sushil Dubey, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No. 2. 2. The present revision under Section 397/401 CrPC has been filed by three persons challenging the order dated 17.08.2024 whereby an application 133-Kha filed by opposite party no. 2 under Section 319 CrPC has been allowed by the Sessions Court and the applicants have been summoned to face trial under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 352, 504 IPC in S.T. No. 574 of 2020 (State Vs. Abubakar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 126 of 2020, Police Station Mundali, District Meerut. 3. The case has a long history and various proceedings right from lodging of FIR till passing of the order impugned and even subsequent thereto, need reference in a chronological manner. 4. In relation to an incident of murder occurred on 19.05.2020, a First Information Report was lodged on the same day at 20.42 hours indicating occurrence at 19.30 hours. Ten (10) persons were named in the FIR and name of one person, namely, Niyaz was added during investigation, bringing the total number of accused to eleven (11). The applicants, though named in the FIR, their names were expunged during the course of investigation as their presence on the spot was not found. As a result thereof, charge sheet was submitted only against 8 persons. 5. When the charge sheet was submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, an application was moved by opposite party no. 2 requesting summoning of the applicants mentioning that their names were wrongly expunged. The said application was disposed of by order dated 09.07.2020 by referring to the statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC indicating as to whether the applicants had aided in commission of crime or not, the same was a matter of trial which would be considered after evidence is led. 6. After the matter was committed to the court of Session, another application (6-Kha) was moved by opposite party no. 2 praying for summoning of the applicants, however, the same was rejected by the Sessions Court by order dated 13.05.2022 observing that no additional facts had been brought on record. 6. After the matter was committed to the court of Session, another application (6-Kha) was moved by opposite party no. 2 praying for summoning of the applicants, however, the same was rejected by the Sessions Court by order dated 13.05.2022 observing that no additional facts had been brought on record. Thereafter, charges were framed and when examination-in-chief of PW-1 commenced on 06.07.2022 and concluded on 05.12.2022, in the meantime, another application under Section 319 CrPC was moved on 19.09.2022 containing the same prayer for summoning the applicants to face trial. An order was passed by the trial court on 24.02.2023 deferring consideration of the said application till recording of evidence of other witnesses of fact. The said application is said to be still pending. 7. Thereafter, evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 was recorded and before cross examination of PW-3 could be concluded, another application (95- Kha) dated 25.07.2023 was moved by opposite party no. 2 making same prayer for summoning the applicants. The application was opposed by the charge-sheeted accused by filing objections dated 29.08.2023 and, by an order dated 09.10.2023, the same was rejected by the Sessions Court on merits. 8. Opposite party no. 2, being aggrieved of the order dated 09.10.2023, approached this Court by filing Criminal Revision No. 5780 of 2023 (Ajwar Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others), which was allowed by order dated 08.07.2024, setting aside the order dated 09.10.2023 with a direction to the court concerned to pass a fresh order in the light of observations made in the order within one month from the date of presentation of certified copy of the order. 9. Opposite party no. 2 filed another application dated 18.07.2024 (133-Kha) under Section 319 CrPC annexing therewith a copy of the order dated 08.07.2024 passed by this Court and prayed for summoning the applicants. While the said application was posted for consideration, the applicants brought to the notice of the trial court the challenge laid by them to the order dated 08.07.2024 by way of SLP (Criminal) No. 10780 of 2024 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 10. On 09.08.2024, an order was passed by the Sessions Court taking note of pending SLP and disposal of application (133-Kha) was deferred fixing 14.08.2024. 10. On 09.08.2024, an order was passed by the Sessions Court taking note of pending SLP and disposal of application (133-Kha) was deferred fixing 14.08.2024. On 14.08.2024, arguments on application (133-Kha) were heard and the matter was posted for passing order on 17.08.2024, on which date, the order impugned in the instant revision has been passed allowing the application (133-Kha) and summoning the applicants to face trial, as already noted. 11. Learned counsel for the applicants has raised following submissions:- (i) The Sessions Court proceeded in undue haste and though, on 09.08.2024, taking note of pendency of SLP against the order dated 08.07.2024, disposal of application (133-Kha) was deferred fixing 14.08.2024, on which date the SLP was decided but order was not uploaded that day but the same was uploaded on 17.08.2024, about which also, the Sessions Court was informed on 17.08.2024, the order impugned has been passed in ignorance of the same and, therefore, the order is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. (ii) The order impugned is based upon the observations made by this Court in the order dated 08.07.2024 without making any reference to the order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, according to which, all questions on merits were opened to be raised by the applicants with reference to their role in the matter and, therefore, disposal of the application in ignorance of the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court, is unsustainable. (iii) At every stage, the prayer for summoning the applicants was declined by the court, firstly, on 09.07.2020 at cognizance stage, secondly, on 13.05.2022 after commital of the case to the Sessions Court, thirdly, adjudication was deferred by order dated 24.02.2023 awaiting recording of evidence of other witnesses of fact which application is still pending, fourthly, on 09.10.2023, which order, though was set aside in revision but once dismissal of revision has been made ineffective by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the circumstance would be read in favour of the applicants and, hence, passing of the order impugned on the same set of facts and material on record, is wholly unjustified. (iv) The order impugned is based upon the observations made in the order dated 08.07.2024 passed by this Court and, therefore, the Sessions Court has treated the said order as final, though the same has to be understood in the light of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also the law laid down in various judgments relied on by the applicants before this Court as to the exercise of powers under Section 319 CrPC and, therefore, cursory observations made in the order impugned without meticulously examining the record of proceedings, cannot be countenanced. (v) There are overwritings in the initially moved application/Tehrir dated 19.05.2020 by the informant, not only as to the time of occurrence of the incident but also involvement of the applicant no. 1 and also serious contradictions in the statements of witnesses, particularly cross examination of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 which have not been considered by the Sessions Court and, therefore, the ratio laid down in Aarif and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and another: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1375, Hetram @ Babli Vs. State of Rajasthan and another: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3509, S. Mohammed Ispahani Vs. Yogendra Chandak and others: (2017) 16 SCC 226 , Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others: (2014) 3 SCC 92 , Brijendra Singh and others Vs. State of Rajasthan: (2017) 7 SCC 706 and Amar Singh and others Vs. State of U.P.: 2024 SCC OnLine All 2234 , has not been followed, hence, the order impugned is unsustainable. (vi) Specific averments made in paragraph no. 60 of the affidavit supporting stay application/memo of revision regarding proceedings held by the Sessions Court on 09.08.2024, 14.08.2024 and 17.08.2024 with reference to the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court and information given by the applicants’ side to the Sessions Court having not been disputed in the counter affidavit, it is a case where undue haste was shown by the Sessions Court in passing the order impugned and in all propriety, the matter should have been deferred until the order dated 14.08.2024 disposing of the SLP could be brought on record and perused, for which no occasion could arise due to final order passed in haste. (vii) The High Court, though allowed the revision filed by opposite party no. (vii) The High Court, though allowed the revision filed by opposite party no. 2 by order dated 08.07.2024, even if the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissing the SLP and also the observations made thereafter are ignored, the observations and findings recorded in paragraph nos. 50, 51 and 52 of the order of this Court clearly read in favour of the applicants and, hence, even if the High Court’s order was to be relied on by the Sessions Court, the said observations were sufficient to reject the application (133-Kha). (viii) The presence of the applicants having not been found on the spot as stated by various independent witnesses, three of whom are shown as eye witnesses at Sl. Nos. 6, 7 and 8 of the charge sheet, there was no justifiable reason for the Sessions Court to allow application (133-Kha) merely on the ground that Section 149 IPC has been pressed into service indicating formation of an unlawful assembly in which the applicants were also involved. (ix) A cross case was registered at Crime No. 361 of 2020 on account of injuries sustained by the defence side, incident in relation whereto occurred at 9.00 PM the same day and, in the said case, one Niyaz sustained injuries but he was added as 11 th accused in the present case and record of proceedings of the present case read with the proceedings of the cross case reflects absolutely no involvement of the applicants in commission of crime, as alleged, and, hence, the cursory allowing the application (133-Kha) is not according to law. (x) Reliance placed by this Court while deciding the aforesaid criminal revision by order dated 08.07.2024, on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sandeep Kumar Vs. The State of Haryana and another: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 573 is misplaced as the said judgment has been passed in ignorance of various other decisions on the point of exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC and, for this reason, though SLP was dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, dismissal was held to be non- prejudicial to the defence qua role of the applicants to be agitated before the court after remand by the High Court and, therefore, things have to be considered in their entirety, not only on facts but also on the law governing the subject. 12. 12. Per contra, learned AGA submits that all the arguments advanced relate to the questions which may be considered during the course of trial and once the last order rejecting the application under Section 319 CrPC was set aside by the High Court in Criminal Revision, which order was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by dismissing the SLP by order dated 14.08.2024, no illegality has been committed by the Sessions Court in allowing the application based upon critical analysis of material available on record and, hence, no interference is warranted. 13. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has made following submissions:- (i) The case being a ‘double murder case’ and the applicants being named in the FIR, expunging their names based upon the statements of independent witnesses, who were not eye witnesses, that the applicants were not present on the spot, in itself, would not be sufficient to reject the application under Section 319 CrPC and, at this stage, only prima facie satisfaction has to be recorded by the court concerned where trial against the persons not charge-sheeted may be felt necessary and, hence, the detailed order passed by the Sessions Court does not call for any interference. (ii) The applicants would not get any advantage of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inasmuch as their SLP was dismissed and even if certain observations were made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Sessions Court has considered the case of both sides on merits after granting opportunity of hearing to the applicants and has arrived at a lawful conclusion based upon the record of investigation, particularly expunging the names of the applicants merely based upon the statements of independent witnesses. (iii) Indication made at entries No. 6, 7 and 8 of the charge sheet as regards witnesses, wherein three persons out of others have been described as eye witnesses by the Investigating Officer, is thoroughly misplaced and cannot be considered as the said persons were not indicated as eye witnesses by the informant and Investigating Officer had no competence or authority to indicate their names as eye witnesses. The fact remains that they would be treated as independent witnesses only and once the presence of the applicants and their specific role of causing physical assault and fire arm injury stand reflected not only from the contents of FIR but also in the testimony of witnesses, the same was sufficient to exercise powers under Section 319 CrPC and, therefore, the order impugned does not call for any interference. (iv) By referring to paragraph no. 28 of the counter affidavit, it is contended that eight (8) so called independent witnesses had been introduced by the Investigating Officer himself and these witnesses falsely stated that it was the month of Ramzan and that the incident took place near mosque at the time of Namaz, whereas, in reality, the incident took place during the lock-down period due to Covid-19 when the mosque was completely closed and, in fact, no such independent witness was present at the place of occurrence nor was it naturally possible. It is further contended that the alleged independent witnesses reside at a distance of 1 Km, 900 mtrs, 800 mtrs and 300 mtrs, which demonstrates that none of the said witnesses was present on the spot and their statements were got recorded on account of collusion in between them and the investigating officer. 14. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 15. Though it is true that the application of opposite party no. 2 to summon the applicants was rejected at cognizance stage by order dated 09.07.2020 and, after commital, it was again rejected on 13.05.2022 by the Sessions Court and, then, after certain statements were recorded and before the completion of cross-examination of PW-3, adjudication of another application under Section 319 CrPC was deferred by order dated 24.02.2023 awaiting recording of statements of other witnesses of fact, the fact remains that a subsequent application dated 25.07.2023 (95-Kha) was finally rejected on 09.10.2023. The said order was set aside by this Court while allowing Criminal Revision No. 5780 of 2023 by order dated 08.07.2024. It is necessary to reproduce certain portions of the said order, as emphatically argued by learned counsel for the applicants. Paragraphs no. 50, 51 and 52 of the order dated 08.07.2024 are extracted herein under:- “50. The said order was set aside by this Court while allowing Criminal Revision No. 5780 of 2023 by order dated 08.07.2024. It is necessary to reproduce certain portions of the said order, as emphatically argued by learned counsel for the applicants. Paragraphs no. 50, 51 and 52 of the order dated 08.07.2024 are extracted herein under:- “50. The Court has now to consider as to whether the satisfaction, which is required to be observed by a Court before summoning a prospective accused could have been observed by Court below on the basis of the depositions of PW-1 Ajwar (first informant), PW-2 Abdullah and PW-3 Asjad. Upon evaluation of the depositions of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, this Court finds that the statements of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 were also recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. However, when a parallel is drawn in between the statements of aforementioned witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and their depositions before Court below this Court finds that nothing new has been stated by the aforementioned witnesses in their depositions before Court below. On the same material, the prospective accused i.e. opposite parties 2, 3 and 4 herein, who are named in the FIR were exculpated as the independent witnesses examined by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the complicity of the opposite parties 2,3 and 4 was not found to be established in the crime in question. 51. From the perusal of depositions of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, it is apparent that nothing new has been stated by aforementioned witnesses than what was stated by them in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C.. As such, the caution given by the Apex Court in the case of Brijendra Singh (Supra) to the effect that in case, a witness has also been examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. then the Court should find out whether something new has emerged in this deposition before Court below and only thereafter proceed to allow the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Since the aforesaid caution given by the Apex Court is not satisfied in the present case coupled with the fact that the statement of aforementioned witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. stood belied by the statements of the independent witnesses examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C., therefore, no illegality can be said to have been committed by Court below in passing the order impugned. 52. 52. It is thus apparent that the prospective accused i.e. opposite parties 2, 3 and 4 herein were named in the FIR but not charge sheeted. The prosecution has filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. after the statement-in-chief/examination-in-chief of three prosecution witnesses of fact i.e. PW-1 Ajwar (first informant), PW-2 Abdullah and PW-3 Asjad was recorded on the ground that as per the depositions of aforementioned witnesses, the complicity of the prospective accused i.e. opposite parties 2, 3 and 4 herein also stands established in the crime in question. However, the statements of aforementioned witnesses were also recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which is similar to their depositions before Court below. As such, nothing new has emerged in the depositions of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 before Court below than what was stated by them in their previous statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The veracity of the statements of aforementioned witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. stood belied by the statements of the independent witnesses examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. namely Mustajab, Masroob, Matloob, Masroof Ali, Mohd. Javed, Sajid and Azhar, who have not implicated the prospective accused in the crime in question as their very presence at the time and place of occurrence was denied by them. As such, up to this stage, the conclusion drawn by Court below to reject the application filed by the prosecution/ first informant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is in consonance with the directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of Brijendra Singh (Supra) and S. Mohammad Ishpahani (Supra).” 16. A perusal of the afore-quoted portions of the order of this Court indicates that the conclusion drawn by the Sessions Court while rejecting the application under Section 319 CrPC was found to be in consonance with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Brijendra Singh (supra) and S. Mohammed Ispahani (supra) However, the reason for allowing the revision and conclusion is contained in paragraphs no. 53 to 60 of the order of this Court, which also need reproduction. For a ready reference, the same are reproduced as under:- “53. However, subsequently, the Apex Court in the case of Sandeep Kumar Vs. 53 to 60 of the order of this Court, which also need reproduction. For a ready reference, the same are reproduced as under:- “53. However, subsequently, the Apex Court in the case of Sandeep Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 888 , has held that in a case under Section 149 IPC, once the presence of prospective accused stands emerged as per the depositions of the prosecution witnesses examined up to the stage of the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. then in such a circumstance, no other material is required to be looked into for ascertaining the innocence of the prospective accused. As such, the aforementioned judgment has carved out an exception to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the Five Judges Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh (Supra), Brijendra Singh (Supra) and S. Mohammad Ishpahani (Supra). 54. As per the depositions of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 recorded before Court below, the presence of prospective accused i.e. opposite parties 2, 3 and 4 herein at the time and place of occurrence is fully established. In view of above, the finding returned by Court below qua the innocence of prospective accused that as per the statements of independent witnesses examined during the course of investigation by the Investigating Officer is of no consequence, so far as the summoning of the prospective accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is concerned. 55. In view of above, the Court below has committed a jurisdictional error in passing the order impugned inasmuch as, the Court below has clearly ignored the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sandeep Kumar (Supra). The Court below has thus exercised its jurisdiction with material irregularity, which has vitiated the order impugned. 56. As a result, the present criminal revision succeeds and is liable to be allowed. 57. It is, accordingly, allowed. 58. The order impugned dated 09.10.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Court No. 2, Meerut, in Sessions Case No. 1126 of 2020 (State Vs,. Abubuquar and others), under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 352, 504, 34 IPC, Police Station-Mundawali, District-Meerut, is, hereby, set aside. 59. The Court below shall pass a fresh order in the light of the observations made herein above within a period of one month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. 60. Abubuquar and others), under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 352, 504, 34 IPC, Police Station-Mundawali, District-Meerut, is, hereby, set aside. 59. The Court below shall pass a fresh order in the light of the observations made herein above within a period of one month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. 60. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the cost is made easy.” 17. A bare perusal of the afore-quoted paragraphs indicates that the revision was allowed by referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sandeep Kumar (supra) and the Sessions Court was found to have committed a jurisdictional error ignoring the ratio laid down in the said case. 18. As to what would be the effect of the order of this Court, is to be seen in the light of order dated 14.08.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Criminal) No. 10780 of 2024, filed by the applicants. The said order is reproduced as under:- “We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and, hence, the present special leave petition is dismissed. We, however, clarify that the impugned judgment and the dismissal of the present special leave petition will not be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, including the alleged role of the petitioners. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.” 19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, though did not interfere with the order of this Court and dismissed the SLP, while doing so, a clarification was made that the impugned judgment and the dismissal of SLP would not be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, including the alleged role of the petitioners (applicants herein). 20. In view of the aforesaid, it was incumbent for the Sessions Court to, at least, refer to the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and understand its implications on the merits of the case (both on facts and law), however, the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was not before the Sessions Court. Qua this aspect, reference to the relevant order sheet of the Sessions Trial is necessary. The same reads as under:- 21. A perusal of the order sheet indicates that factum of pendency of SLP was noted by the court on 09.08.2024 and hearing of application (133-Kha) was deferred fixing 14.08.2024. Qua this aspect, reference to the relevant order sheet of the Sessions Trial is necessary. The same reads as under:- 21. A perusal of the order sheet indicates that factum of pendency of SLP was noted by the court on 09.08.2024 and hearing of application (133-Kha) was deferred fixing 14.08.2024. On 14.08.2024, arguments on application (133-Kha) were heard. Admittedly, SLP was decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the same day, i.e. on 14.08.2024. 22. At this stage, reference to paragraph no. 60 of the affidavit supporting stay application/memo of revision needs to be made, which is reproduced as under:- “60. That on 05.08.2024 application was filed on behalf of Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist no. 1 seeking an extremely short adjournment in the matter. On the said application 09.08.2024, was the date fixed. That on 09.08.2024 an application alongwith status report of SLP (Crl) was also filed before the Court below to demonstrate that the tentative date fixed in SLP (Crl) is 14.08.2024. That on 14.08.2024 when the matter was heard by the Learned Court below post lunch whereupon due intimation was given that the SLP (Crl) has already been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court a few minutes before whereby direction has been issued to decide the matter on its own merit and without being influenced with the judgment of the Hon’ble Court or with the dismissal of SLP (Crl) including the alleged role of the revisionists. As such request was made to grant a short date so that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court may be placed on record. But the Learned Court below was adamant to decide the matter because the time of one month, as per direction of the Hon’ble High Court, was coming to an end. On repeated requests the Learned Court below adjourned the matter on 17.08.2024 with an assurance that without looking into the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court no further action will be taken in the matter. On 17 th , the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, was uploaded on the official website after 4 in the evening, however the Learned Court below without waiting for the same pass the impugned order in a most arbitrary manner. Copy of order passed by Supreme Court dated 14.08.2024 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. 27 to this affidavit. 23. Copy of order passed by Supreme Court dated 14.08.2024 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. 27 to this affidavit. 23. The aforesaid paragraph has been responded to in paragraph no. 48 of the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party no. 2. The same reads as under:- “48. That the contents of paragraph no. 60 of the affidavit is a matter of record describing of the filing of SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, hence, needs no comment.” 24. Considering the detailed statement of facts qua the order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 14.08.2024 and its uploading after 4.00 PM on 17.08.2024 and insistence on the part of applicants requesting Sessions Court to wait for order of Hon’ble Supreme Court and no specific denial of the same in the counter affidavit, the Court has no reason not to accept the statement contained in paragraph no. 60 of the affidavit. Once it is so, the Court finds absolutely no justification on the part of the Sessions Court to show undue haste in passing the final order on the same day, i.e. 17.08.2024 and in all judicial propriety, it should have waited for bringing the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on record and, then, proceed to decide the application. 25. It further reflects that the order dated 17.08.2024 impugned in the present revision, at so many places, indicates that the same is being passed “in compliance of or in furtherance of the order dated 08.07.2024” passed by the High Court in the revision and no reference of the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court and its implication is contained therein. In this background of facts, this Court does not approve the approach of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Meerut and finds undue haste on his part in deciding the application (133-Kha). 26. Although, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has also tried to defend quick disposal of the application by arguing that the time limit fixed by the High Court was going to expire, the record reveals that this Court, by order dated 08.07.2024, had granted one month time for deciding the application from production of certified copy of the order, which was filed by opposite party no. 2 along with a fresh application (133-Kha) on 18.07.2024 and, if the argument advanced on behalf of opposite party no. 2 along with a fresh application (133-Kha) on 18.07.2024 and, if the argument advanced on behalf of opposite party no. 2 regarding expiry of one month time from the date of production of certified copy of the order is accepted on its face value, the time would have certainly expired on 17.08.2024, which was the 30 th day from filing of the order of this Court (Month of July being of 31 days). On 17.08.2024, passing of the order by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 14.08.2024 and its late uploading was brought to the notice of the Sessions Court. Heavens would have not fallen if the matter could have been posted after one or two days for perusal of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and to act accordingly. One month fixed by the High Court could not mean that the application could not have been decided on 32 nd day nor could the Sessions Judge, for not deciding the matter on 31 st day would have faced contempt proceedings. 27. This Court could have made further observations as regards the undue and unwarranted haste shown by the then Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Meerut, however, it refrains itself from doing so but with a remark that judiciary must not give rise to any occasion where litigants who approach Courts for redressal of their grievances in accordance with law, start losing faith in this pious institution as it is the last ray of hope for people to get justice by lawful means. 28. 28. As regards merits of the contentions and counter contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, not only based upon factual position on record but also the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments, on perusal of the judgment in the case of Sandeep Kumar (supra) , the Court finds that though observations have been made that at the stage of considering an application under Section 319 CrPC, appreciation of the merits of evidence need not be done and one of the charges being of Section 149 IPC, any specific individual role or act is not material, the said judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court when read with the ratio laid down in other previous decisions in the cases of Hetram @ Babli (supra), Aarif (supra), S. Mohammed Ispahani (supra), Hardeep Singh (supra) and Brijendra Singh (supra), it would be revealed that cross-examination of witnesses has been treated as a matter of quite significance even at the stage of consideration of application under Section 319 CrPC. For this purpose, paragraph no. 9 of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hetram @ Babli (supra) is reproduced as under:- “9. In the facts of the case, the occasion for considering the application under Section 319 of the CrPC arose after the cross- examination of the only eye witnesses was recorded. Therefore, while deciding an application under Section 319 of the CrPC, the Court must consider the cross-examination as well. If an application under Section 319 of the CrPC is made after the cross examination of witnesses, it will be unjust to ignore the same. The power under Section 319 of the CrPC cannot be exercised when there is no case made out against the persons sought to be implicated. In view of the omissions which are material and which amount to contradiction, obviously no Court could have recorded a satisfaction which is contemplated by Section 319 of the CrPC. It is impossible to record a finding that even a prima facie case of involvement of the appellant has been made out.” 29. On the same lines, paragraphs no. 7 and 8 of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aarif (supra) are reproduced as under:- “7. As far as evidence of PW-1 is concerned, we find that though opportunities were available earlier, the statement of the said witness was recorded very late. On the same lines, paragraphs no. 7 and 8 of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aarif (supra) are reproduced as under:- “7. As far as evidence of PW-1 is concerned, we find that though opportunities were available earlier, the statement of the said witness was recorded very late. The witness admitted that at 4 a.m., when she was in the hospital where the deceased was undergoing treatment, a police constable came. Still, she did not disclose anything about the incident to the police constable. She was in the hospital for the entire night, where a police outpost was there. But she did not disclose anything to the police. In any event, in the earlier round, the High Court did not find evidence of the PW-1 sufficient to sustain the order under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. 8. PW-5 - Shahrookh, in his cross-examination , admitted that he had not seen the incident with his own eyes. Therefore, he is not an eyewitness. PW-6 - Mohammed claims to have seen the incident from some distance. He also claims to have gone to the hospital where the deceased was taken. He did not report the incident to the police, though the deceased was related to him. The respondents also placed reliance on the testimony of PW-7 - Ekaramuddin S/o Chand Mohammed. His statement was recorded three weeks after the incident. Evidence of said witnesses is insufficient to meet the standards of a prima facie case laid down by the Constitution Bench. No other evidence is relied upon by the respondents to support the application under Section 319.” 30. On the same aspect, paragraphs no. 13 and 15 of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Brijendra Singh (supra) are extracted as under:- “13. In order to answer the question, some of the principles enunciated in Hardeep Singh’s case may be recapitulated: Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the trial court at any stage during the trial, i.e., before the conclusion of trial, to summon any person as an accused and face the trial in the ongoing case, once the trial court finds that there is some ‘evidence’ against such a person on the basis of which evidence it can be gathered that he appears to be guilty of the offence. The ‘evidence’ herein means the material that is brought before the Court during trial. Insofar as the material/evidence collected by the IO at the stage of inquiry is concerned, it can be utilised for corroboration and to support the evidence recorded by the Court to invoke the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. No doubt, such evidence that has surfaced in examination-in-chief, without cross-examination of witnesses, can also be taken into consideration. However, since it is a discretionary power given to the Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and is also an extraordinary one, same has to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrants. The degree of satisfaction is more than the degree which is warranted at the time of framing of the charges against others in respect of whom chargesheet was filed. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the Court that such power should be exercised. It is not to be exercised in a casual or a cavalier manner. The prima facie opinion which is to be formed requires stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. 15. This record was before the trial court. Notwithstanding the same, the trial court went by the deposition of complainant and some other persons in their examination-in-chief, with no other material to support their so- called verbal/ocular version. Thus, the ‘evidence’ recorded during trial was nothing more than the statements which was already there under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded at the time of investigation of the case. No doubt, the trial court would be competent to exercise its power even on the basis of such statements recorded before it in examination-in- chief . However, in a case like the present where a plethora of evidence was collected by the IO during investigation which suggested otherwise, the trial court was at least duty bound to look into the same while forming prima facie opinion and to see as to whether much stronger evidence than mere possibility of their (i.e. appellants) complicity has come on record. There is no satisfaction of this nature. There is no satisfaction of this nature. Even if we presume that the trial court was not apprised of the same at the time when it passed the order (as the appellants were not on the scene at that time), what is more troubling is that even when this material on record was specifically brought to the notice of the High Court in the Revision Petition filed by the appellants, the High Court too blissfully ignored the said material. Except reproducing the discussion contained in the order of the trial court and expressing the agreement therewith, nothing more has been done. Such orders cannot stand judicial scrutiny . ” 31. All the aforesaid judgments deal with the parameters of exercise of powers under Section 319 CrPC but were not discussed in the subsequent judgment in case of Sandeep Kumar (supra) in the light whereof, this Court, while allowing the revision filed by opposite party no. 2, had remitted the matter to the Sessions Court. Once the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dismissing the SLP had clarified that the impugned judgment and the dismissal of SLP would not be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, including the alleged role of the petitioners (applicants), in the opinion of this Court, all questions of fact and law would be open to be raised by the applicants before the Sessions Court pursuant to the remand made by the High Court and, therefore, making cursory reference to the cross examination of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, without even indicating as to what they had stated about role of the applicants, allowing application under Section 319 CrPC, does not appear to be justified. 32. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds it to be a fit case where the matter has to be reconsidered by the Sessions Court after taking into consideration the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the order dated 14.08.2024 passed in SLP (Criminal) No. 10780 of 2024, entire material on record, including cross-examination of witnesses significance whereof has been emphasized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above-referred decisions. 33. Accordingly, the revision is allowed . The order dated 17.08.2024 referred to in second paragraph of this order, stands set aside. 34. 33. Accordingly, the revision is allowed . The order dated 17.08.2024 referred to in second paragraph of this order, stands set aside. 34. The Sessions Court concerned (other than the Presiding Officer who had passed the order dated 17.08.2024 if he is still posted in the said Sessions Division) is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law on already moved applications that are on record and in the light of observations made in this order, after hearing the applicants, opposite party no. 2 as well as State on or before 31.03.2026, provided a certified/self attested downloaded copy of this order is filed before the Court concerned in 1st week of January, 2026.