ATUL KUMARversusState of U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                  CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5258 of 2024

Atul Kumar
                                                          .....Revisionist(s)
                                  Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                               .....Opposite
                                                                     Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)          :   Vikas Singh, Vivek Chaturvedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)       :   G.A., Vikas Yadav

Court No. - 45
                 HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.

1. Counter affidavit has been filed by the learned counsel for O.P. No. 2
and the same is taken on record.

2. Heard Mr. Vikash Singh, learned counsel for revisionist, learned
A.G.A. for the State and Sri Vikash Yadav, learned counsel for O.P. No.
2.

3. The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist
assailing the impugned order dated 07.08.2025 passed by the learned
Addl. Session Judge-I, Basti (hereinafter referred as "trial court") in S.T.
No. 1 of 2022 (State v. Gaya Prasad), whereby the revisionist has been
summoned by the trial court under Section 302 I.P.C. in exercise of power
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. vested in the Court.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the impugned order has
been passed in manifest error of law and without proper appreciation of
evidence available on record. The trial court has summoned the
revisionist solely on the basis of uncorroborated oral statements of P.W.-
1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3. It is further submitted that the power under Section
319 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and extraordinary in nature and is required to
be exercised sparingly on the basis of strong and cogent evidence.
Learned counsel further submits that before summoning a person under
section 319 Cr.P.C., the Court must record its satisfaction that the
evidence on record is such that , if left unrebutted, it may reasonably lead
to conviction of the proposed accused. No such findings has been
                                                        CRLR No. 5258 of 2024
                               2


recorded by the trial court in the impugned order.

5. To buttress his submissions, the learned counsel for the revisionist
placed reliance upon Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and others
(2014) 3 SCC 92, wherein the Apex Court held that the power under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and extraordinary and is to be
exercised sparingly, only where cogent and strong evidence emerges
against a person from the evidence led before the trial court, and not in a
casual or routine manner. Reliance has also been placed on Palanisamy
Gounder and another v. State (Represented by inspector of police)
(2005) 12 SCC 327 and Brindaban Das and others v. State of West
Bengal, (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 79,to contend that unless the evidence on
record is such that, if left unrebutted, it may reasonably lead to conviction
of the proposed accused, the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. ought not
to be exercised. It is further submitted that since summoning under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. may entail a de novo trial and a large number of
witnesses have already been examined, the said power is required to be
exercised with great care and caution. Learned counsel further submits
that the revisionist has been summoned merely on the ground that he was
named in the F.I.R. and that the first informant and his family members
had taken his name in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which
by itself is not sufficient. It is also submitted that no independent witness
has supported the prosecution case and the statements of P.W.-1, P.W.-2
and P.W.-3 do not disclose any motive and thus the impugned order is
erroneous, untenable and unsustainable in law.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the revision and submitted that
although the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is extraordinary in nature
and is required to be exercised sparingly, the same has been rightly
exercised in the present case. It is submitted that while exercising power
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and allowing the application, the Court is
required to record its satisfaction that the evidence available on record is
such that, if left unrebutted, it may reasonably lead to conviction of the
proposed accused. In the impugned order dated 07.08.2025, the trial court
has observed that the written report, the F.I.R., the statements of P.W.-1,
P.W.-2 and P.W.-3, as well as the post-mortem report, disclose material
of such quality as was sufficient to summon the proposed accused to face
                                                                                              CRLR No. 5258 of 2024
                                                                      3


                                    trial along with the other accused already facing trial. It is further
                                    submitted that although the precise expression that the evidence, if left
                                    unrebutted, may lead to conviction has not been employed, the tenor of
                                    the impugned order clearly indicates that the trial court found the
                                    evidence to be of sufficient quality to justify summoning the revisionist. It
                                    is, thus, submitted that no interference in the impugned order is warranted
                                    and the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.

                                    7. So far as the contention of the revisionist that while passing the
                                    impugned order the trial court did not consider the statements of the
                                    witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and proceeded only on the
                                    basis of the oral statements recorded before the trial court. It is to be noted
                                    that statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are not substantive
                                    evidence. For the purposes of Section 319 Cr.P.C., the Court is primarily
                                    required to consider the evidence that has come before it during trial. In
                                    the present case, since the depositions of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3
                                    recorded before the Court remain intact and also find support from the
                                    documentary material available on record, they are of higher evidentiary
                                    value. Therefore, merely because the trial court has not referred in detail
                                    to the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the impugned order
                                    does not stand vitiated.

                                    8. Having heard the learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. S.K. Ojha,
                                    learned A.G.A. for the State, and upon perusal of the finding recorded by
                                    the trial court, as noticed at page 3 of the impugned order, the court finds
                                    no force in the present criminal revision.

                                    9. It is accordingly dismissed.



                                                                                      (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.)
                                    April 16, 2026
                                    RPD




Digitally signed by :-
RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad