# Govardhan Singh Revisionist v. State Of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2016) 7 ILRA 671 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-07-13 - **Bench:** Prabhat Chandra Tripathi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/govardhan-singh-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44192 - **Pages:** 3 ## Text 7 All. Govardhan Singh Vs State Of U.P. & Ors. 671 Dharmarth Trust, Bareilly and another Vs. Nagar Nigam, Bareilly (Annexure-4 to the affidavit filed in support of revision) is a well discussed and elaborate judgment regarding subject matter of the suit. 8. All the facts have been discussed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6, Bareilly in the impugned order dated 04.09.2012 on the application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., Police Station Prem Nagar, District Bareily and thereafter discussing the subject matter of dispute has arrived at a right conclusion. The impugned order suffers from no illegality or perversity. The revision lacks merits and deserves to be dismissed. 9. Dismissed. 10. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. ----------- REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.07.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRABHAT CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. Criminal Revision No.- 3683 Of 2014 Govardhan Singh ...Revisionist Versus State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties Counsels for the Revisionist: Hemendra Pratap Singh, S.K. Pandey-II For the Opposite Parties: Govt. Advocate Procedure: Criminal Revision under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 18.10.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Mathura in S.T. No. 53 of 2013 (State v. Digambar & Ors.), whereby the application moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning accused persons was rejected. Issue: Whether rejection of an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is justified when the proposed accused were named in the F.I.R. and assigned specific roles in the oral evidence of P.W.-1, supported by injury reports. Headnotes: The proposed accused persons were specifically named in the F.I.R. and their active participation was clearly reiterated in the oral testimony of P.W.-1 (informant). The injury reports of the injured witnesses 672 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES further corroborate the prosecution version. The trial court, while rejecting the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., overlooked material evidence and failed to apply the correct legal principles. The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised where strong and cogent evidence appears against a person. The impugned order suffers from legal infirmity and cannot be sustained. Legal Maxim: A verbis legis non est recedendum - from the words of law, there must be no departure. Case Law Discussed: Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No. 1750 of 2008, decided on 10.01.2014 (SC) Sarabjit Singh v. State of Punjab, LAWS (SC)-2009-5-225 Ram Singh v. Ram Niwas, LAWS (SC)-2009-5-138 Result: Criminal Revision Allowed. The impugned order dated 18.10.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Mathura is set aside. (Delivered by Hon'ble Prabhat Chandra Tripathi, J.) 1. List has been revised. Sri Hemendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri S.K. Pandey-II, learned counsel for the opposite parties no.2 and 3 are present. 2. This revision has been filed against the order dated 18.10.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Mathura in S.T. No.53 of 2013 (State v. Digambar and others), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 325, 323, 324, 504, 506/34 I.P.C. (Case Crime No.171 of 2010), Police Station Chhata, District Mathura, whereby the application moved by the revisionist under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the opposite parties no.2 to 4 to face the trial has been rejected. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. After going through the F.I.R., it is that the alleged accused persons, namely, Manoj, Jiwan Lal and Mahender are named as accused persons. In the oral evidence of P.W.-1, Govardhan Singh also above named accused persons have been assigned the specific role in the alleged occurrence. The injury reports of the injured Babu Lal and Om Prakash also reveal the certain injuries which fortify the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1750 of 2008 (Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab), dated 10.01.2014. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has relied upon the judgements of the Supreme Court in Sarabjit Singh v. State of Punjab, LAWS (SC)-2009-5-225 and Ram Singh v. Ram Niwas, LAWS (SC)-2009-5-138. 7 All. Balbeer Vs State Of U.P. & Ors. 673 7. This is a case where the alleged accused persons were named in the F.I.R. and in the evidence of the informant, Govardhan Singh. The court concerned in the impugned order dated 18.10.2014 has discussed the evidence and the material available on record but it has oversighted the fact that the alleged accused persons were named in the F.I.R. and also assigned specific role during the commission of the crime and this has been reiterated in the oral evidence of P.W.-1, Govardhan Singh. 8. The legal maxim "A verbis legis non est recedendum" which means, "from the words of law, there must be no departure" has to be kept in mind. Thus, there must not be any other interpretation of Section 319 Cr.P.C. 9. The impugned order dated 18.10.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Mathura suffers from legal infirmity and deserves to be set aside. Resultantly, revision is liable to be allowed. 10. The criminal revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.10.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Mathura is hereby set aside. ---------- REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.07.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHASHI KANT, J. Criminal Revision No.- 3828 Of 2014 Balbeer ...Revisionist Versus State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Revisionist: Vivek Kumar Singh, Mayank Yadav Counsel for the Opposite Parties: Govt. Advocate, Rajesh Yadav Criminal law-Criminal Revision - Order dated 27.09.2013 - Application (98-Ka) under Section 319 Cr.P.C. - Rejected - Summoning of additional accused - Earlier application rejected - Prosecution witnesses not cross examined - Subsequent application - Delay of more than 8 years - Stage of recording statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. - Enquiry into or trial of an offence - No limitation prescribed - Evidence recorded during trial - FIR named accused - No charge sheet filed - Complicity of proposed accused - Evidence of PW1 Balbeer, PW-2 Kishanpal, PW-3 Ramveer and PW-4 Jogendra - Names, parentage and arms - Satisfaction - More than prima facie case - Short of satisfaction to an extent that evidence if goes unrebutted would lead to conviction - Pre-trial stage - Trial at final stage - Contradictory evidence - Medical evidence - Intention of