Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:8940 Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 180 of 2025 Revisionist :- Seema Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Kalika Prasad Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for respondent State. 2. Notices to respondent no. 2 is dispensed with in view of the proposed order. 3. This revision has been filed by the revisionist Seema aggrieved by the order dated 20.12.2024 by which the accused revisionist has been summoned by the learned Sessions court in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the prosecution witnesses in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have not alleged the complicity of the revisionist. The order has been passed without application of mind. Even Ravindra Pal, who is the injured witness, has not taken the name of the revisionist in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and now his testimony before the court as P.W.2 should be disbelieved. 5. Learned A.G.A has opposed the revision and has submitted that P.W.1 and P.W.2 have been examined before the learned trial court and have alleged the complicity of the revisionist along with the co-accused persons. On the basis of such deposition made before the learned trial court the revisionist has been summoned as an additional accused tried along with co-accused persons. 6. Perused the record. 7. Section 319 Cr.P.C. is extracted below:- "319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.— (1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. (2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. (3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed. (4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1), then— (a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and the witnesses re-heard; (b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced." 8. A perusal of the aforesaid Section 319 Cr.P.C. shows that during trial if it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence he can be summoned to face trial. P.W.1 and P.W.2 have given statement and examined before the sessions court and have alleged the complicity of the revisionist. 9. The 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. The evidence herein means the material that is brought before the Court during trial. The statement of P.W.1 and P.W.2 are evidence in terms of section 3 of the Evidence Act. 10. In this case, learned trial court, after finding the evidence, which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction, on arriving this satisfaction, have summoned the accused persons. There appears to be no illegality in the order impugned. The revision, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. 11. At this stage, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that as the revisionist is a lady and has no criminal history, she may be permitted to apply for bail and the same shall be considered sympathetically as sending the revisionist behind bars will not solve any purpose. 12. As prayed, it is provided that in case, the revisionist surrenders before the trial court and applies for bail, the bail application of the revisionist shall be considered sympathetically in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr, Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).5191/2021. Order Date :- 12.2.2025 Madhu D.R/P.S Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench