UKHC010180752024 2026:UHC:6511 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS CRLR/824/2024 Tarif Mohammad And Ors --Revisionist Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. A.S. Rawat, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Gaurav Paliwal, Mr. Bilal Ahmed and Mohd. Matlub, Advocates for the revisionists. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Vikas Uniyal, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Pavan Kumar Nath, Advocate for respondent no.2. 2. By means of the present Criminal Revision, the revisionists have challenged the order dated 01.10.2024 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No.162 of 2021, whereby the learned trial Court, in exercise of powers under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, summoned the revisionists to face trial along with the other accused persons. 3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the revisionists submits that although the names of the revisionists were mentioned in the First Information Report, the Investigating Officer, after conducting a fair and detailed investigation, found no credible material implicating them in the UKHC010180752024 2026:UHC:6511 commission of the alleged offence and, accordingly, did not submit charge-sheet against them. It is contended that revisionist no.1 was not present at the place of occurrence on the date of the incident and was working as a labourer in another village. The said fact was verified by the Investigating Officer through the Call Detail Records (CDRs) as well as the statements of co-labourers recorded during the course of investigation. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer also examined the CDRs of the other revisionists, recorded the statements of independent villagers under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and scrutinised other electronic evidence, whereafter he arrived at the conclusion that the revisionists were not involved in the alleged incident. Learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, (2014) 3 SCC 92, to contend that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is extraordinary in nature and is required to be exercised sparingly and only where strong and cogent evidence emerges during the course of trial, which is much stronger than the material required for framing of charge. It is, thus, submitted that the evidence adduced before the trial Court did not satisfy the test laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent no.2 supports the impugned order and submits that the same does not suffer from any legal infirmity. It is contended that the names of the revisionists find place not only in the First Information Report but also in the depositions of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4 and P.W.-5, who have consistently UKHC010180752024 2026:UHC:6511 attributed specific roles to each of the revisionists in the commission of the offence. It is argued that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the Court is required to examine whether the evidence recorded during trial discloses the involvement of a person not facing trial, and not whether such evidence is sufficient to record a conviction. It is further submitted that the plea of alibi raised by the revisionists constitutes a matter of defence, which can only be adjudicated upon during the course of trial after appreciation of evidence, and the same cannot be conclusively determined while considering an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It is, therefore, submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction after evaluating the evidence that had surfaced during trial. 5. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material brought on record. The scope and ambit of the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been authoritatively explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, (2014) 3 SCC 92, wherein it has been held that although the power is extraordinary and is to be exercised sparingly, the Court is empowered to summon a person not charge-sheeted if strong and cogent evidence emerges during the course of trial indicating his involvement in the commission of the offence. The Court is not expected to conduct a mini trial or record a finding of guilt at that stage; rather, it is required to ascertain whether the evidence adduced is such that, if left unrebutted, it reasonably points towards the involvement of the proposed accused. UKHC010180752024 2026:UHC:6511 6. In the present case, the revisionists were admittedly named in the First Information Report. During the course of trial, P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4 and P.W.-5 have specifically named the revisionists and assigned distinct roles to them in the occurrence. Learned trial Court has taken into consideration the evidence which emerged before it during trial and has recorded its satisfaction that such evidence warranted exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Merely because the Investigating Officer did not submit charge-sheet against the revisionists would not preclude the trial Court from exercising its independent jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C., if the evidence recorded before it discloses their involvement. It is well settled that the opinion formed by the Investigating Officer is not binding upon the Court. So far as the plea of alibi raised on behalf of the revisionists is concerned, the same is essentially a defence available to the accused, the correctness whereof can only be examined upon appreciation of evidence during trial. Such a plea cannot be conclusively adjudicated at the stage of considering the legality of an order passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Harjinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab & another, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1029 has held that the plea of the alibi is the matter of evidence that can only be determined during trial and a mere claim that the accused was elsewhere at the time of the incident cannot outweigh the prosecution prima facia evidence. Since the burden of proving alibi lies on the accused, its truthfulness must be tested through evidence and cross-examination during trial. 7. Having regard to the evidence UKHC010180752024 2026:UHC:6511 available on record and the settled principles of law governing the exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C., this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court has exercised its jurisdiction in accordance with law. No jurisdictional error, perversity or material illegality is discernible in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. (Alok Mahra, J.) 28.07.2026 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20dddb7 393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB98744 6351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.07.28 18:02:29 +05'30'