HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5258 of 2024 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 Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Vikas Singh, Vivek Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Vikas Yadav Atul Kumar .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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 2 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. April 16, 2026 RPD CRLR No. 5258 of 2024 3 (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad