High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:122138 Court No. - 86 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2669 of 2025 Revisionist :- Jamir @ Chunnu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Shiv Chand Yadav,Shyam Lal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. 'Vakalatnama' filed by Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh Advocate on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Shyam Lal, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2. 3. The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 26.3.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Jaunpur in Sessions Trial No.62 of 2021 (State Vs. Sultan & Ors.) whereby, in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the revisionist had been summoned to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 341, 506, 120-B of I.P.C. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has submitted that the trial court, while exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., had considered the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer in the Case Diary under Section 161 Cr.P.C. whereas, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its catena of judgments had categorically laid down the law that for exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. only the evidence available before the trial court i.e. the evidence which had come on record during trial or inquiry can be considered and further the trial court for summoning an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot consider the material collected by the Investigating Officer during the investigation.