HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5829 of 2024 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State, and learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3. 2. The present criminal revision has been filed against the judgment/order dated 20.09.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (Exclusive Court, POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Etah, in Sessions Case No. 977 of 2022 (State of U.P. vs. Sandeep alias Sanjay and others), arising out of Police Station Jalesar, District Etah, whereby the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the statements of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 have already been recorded before the learned trial court. The application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed to summon opposite party no. 2 (Saurabh) and opposite party no. 3 (Jitendra alias Teetu alias Teetalla). The victim is a minor aged about 17 years. The incident is dated 12.08.2022, and the date of birth of the victim, as stated by her, is 12.10.2004. 4. Learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 submits that they are not named in the F.I.R. It is settled law under Section 319 Cr.P.C. that a person may be summoned on the basis of the statement recorded before the trial court, even if such person was not named in the F.I.R. or was exonerated in the charge sheet despite being named therein. The accused is to be summoned on the basis of the deposition made before the learned trial court. As per Section 319 Cr.P.C., the trial of the prospective accused has to proceed along with the other accused. It is also settled that cross- Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ashutosh Pratap Singh, Lokendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mithilesh Kumar Tiwari X (Informant) .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) examination of the witness is not a precondition for summoning an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Others, AIR 2014 SC 1400 that cross-examination is not required for summoning a proposed accused; he may be summoned solely on the basis of the examination-in- chief recorded during trial. 5. In the present matter, the statements of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 have already been recorded. The learned trial court, by the impugned order, observed that the eye-witness had not been examined at that stage; hence, there was no sufficient ground to summon the prospective accused, Saurabh and Jitendra alias Teetu alias Teetalla, under Section 319 Cr.P.C., and accordingly rejected the application. 6. The learned trial court has passed the impugned order on a perverse finding. A prospective accused may be summoned on the basis of the statement of witnesses recorded during trial if the evidence is more than prima facie in nature, i.e., such evidence which, if left uncontroverted or unrebutted, may lead to conviction. The observation of the trial court that unless the eye-witness is examined, no order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be passed is not in consonance with the settled legal position. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20.09.2024 is hereby set aside. The learned trial court is directed to pass a fresh order on the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in accordance with law. 8. The present criminal revision is, accordingly, allowed. February 23, 2026 K.K. Maurya CRLR No. 5829 of 2024 2 (Abdul Shahid,J.) Digitally signed by :- KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad