# Sandeep Kumar Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 77
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-05-17
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 523 of 2023
- **Bench:** Shree Prakash Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sandeep-kumar-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50289
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 397/401 -
Revision , Section 319 - Power to
proceed against other persons appearing
to be guilty of offence - power under
section 319 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked
and
exercised
before
the
pronouncement
of
the
order
of
sentence.(Para -13 )

Plea has been raised - challenging trial court's
erroneous summoning of accused-revisionist -
under
section
319
of
Cr.P.C.
before
sentence.(Para - 12)

HELD:-Court finds that the trial court has
jurisdiction under section 319 of Cr.P.C.
before the pronouncement of the judgment.
Trial court exercised its jurisdiction before the
order
of
sentence,
indicating
no
erroneousness in the impugned judgment and
order. (Para -13)

Revision dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

Sukhpal Singh Khaira Vs St. of Punj., 2023 (1)
SCC 289

## Text

5 All. Sandeep Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
77
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 77
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Criminal Revision No. 523 of 2023

Sandeep Kumar ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sudhir Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 397/401 -
Revision , Section 319 - Power to
proceed against other persons appearing
to be guilty of offence - power under
section 319 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked
and
exercised
before
the
pronouncement
of
the
order
of
sentence.(Para -13 )

Plea has been raised - challenging trial court's
erroneous summoning of accused-revisionist -
under
section
319
of
Cr.P.C.
before
sentence.(Para - 12)

HELD:-Court finds that the trial court has
jurisdiction under section 319 of Cr.P.C.
before the pronouncement of the judgment.
Trial court exercised its jurisdiction before the
order
of
sentence,
indicating
no
erroneousness in the impugned judgment and
order. (Para -13)

Revision dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

Sukhpal Singh Khaira Vs St. of Punj., 2023 (1)
SCC 289
(Delivered by Hon'ble Shree Prakash
Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sudhir Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri
Girijesh Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the material placed on
record.

2. By means of the present application,
prayer has been made to quash the
impugned order dated 31.03.2023, passed
by Additional Session Judge, court no. 4,
Barabanki, Session Trial No. 273/2012,
State of U.P. versus Rakesh, up to the
extent of summoning of revisionist under
section 319 of Criminal Procedure Code
and
to
stay
the
operation
and
implementation of impugned order dated
31.03.2023, passed by the Kamal Kant
Srivastava, Additional Session Judge, court
no. 4, Barabanki, Session Trial No.
273/2012, State of U.P. versus Rakesh up to
the extent of summoning of revisionist
under section 319 of Criminal Procedure
Code.

3. Since, pure legal question is
involved in this matter, thus, notice to the
opposite party no. 2 is hereby dispensed
with.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the
revisionist submits that initially the first
information report was lodged against the
present revisionist, including the other coaccused
persons,
wherein,
after
the
investigation, the present revisionist was
not found involved in committing offence
and thus, his name has been expunged. He
next added that thereafter, the trial
78 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
commenced and at the time of conclusion
of trial, on the date of the pronouncement
of the judgment, the learned trial court
while invoking its jurisdiction under
section 319 of Cr.P.C. has summoned the
present revisionist though, there was no
substantial material against the revisionist
to summon him under section 319 of
Cr.P.C.

5. Adding his arguments, he submits
that during the course of the trial in the year
only P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-5 have named
the present revisionist. He next added that
in a very hurriedly manner and without
recording the degree of satisfaction, the
present revisionist has been summoned
though,
he
was
never
involved
in
committing any offence and there is no
material, which could show that there was
more than prima facie or much stronger
case is available against the revisionist.

6. In support of his submission, he has
drawn attention towards judgment reported
in 2023 (1) Supreme Court Cases 289
Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab
and has referred paragraph 39(1) and added
that the constitutional bench of the Apex
Court while answering a reference has held
that power under section 319 of Cr.P.C. is
to be invoked and exercised before the
pronouncement of the order of sentence,
where there is a judgment of conviction of
the accused. It has further been held that if
the order is passed on the same day, it will
have to be examined on the facts and
circumstances of each case and if such,
summoning order is passed either after the
order of acquittal or imposing sentence in
the case of conviction, the same will not be
sustainable.

7. Paragraph 39 (1) is quoted herein
under:-

Whether the trial court has the
power under Section 319 CrPC for
summoning additional accused when the
trial with respect to other co-accused has
ended and the judgment of conviction
rendered
on
the
same
date
before
pronouncing the summoning order?

The power under Section 319
CrPC is to be invoked and exercised before
the pronouncement of the order of sentence
where there is a judgment of conviction of
the accused. In the case of acquittal, the
power should be exercised before the order
of acquittal is pronounced. Hence, the
summoning order has to precede the
conclusion of trial by imposition of
sentence in the case of conviction. If the
order is passed on the same day. it will
have to be examined on the facts and
circumstances of each case and if such
summoning order is passed either after the
order of acquittal or imposing sentence in
the case of conviction, the same will not be
sustainable.

8. Referring the aforesaid, he submits
that since there is no substantial evidence
against the revisionist and the facts and
circumstances for invoking the jurisdiction
under section 319 of Cr.P.C. has not been
discussed in the order impugned and
therefore, the judgment and order passed
dated 31.03.2023 is against the law
enunciated by the Apex Court.

9. Further, submission is that the
impugned order dated 31.03.2023 may be
set aside to the extent of summoning the
5 All. Sandeep Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
79
revisionist-accused under section 319 of
Cr.P.C.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the
State
has
vehemently
opposed
the
submissionsaforesaid and submits that the
learned trial court has summoned the
present revisionist under section 319 of
Cr.P.C., after discussing in detail the facts and
circumstances which itself is evident from the
judgment and order dated 31.03.2023 started
from internal page 22 of the judgment itself.
He added that law is very clear on this point
that the trial court can invoke its jurisdiction
under section 319 of Cr.P.C. for summoning
the accused, prior to the order of sentence,
where, there is judgment of conviction of the
accused. He also added that the case in hand
is that the revisionist-accused has been
summoned under section 319 of Cr.P.C. prior
to the order of sentence. He has also drawn
attention towards the constitution bench
judgment in Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of
Punjab Supra and added that while
answering the reference, the Apex Court has
also held that power under section 319 of
Cr.P.C. can be invoked and exercised before
the pronouncement of the order of sentence
where, there is judgment of conviction of
accused. He submits that the case aforesaid
also supports the version of the prosecution.

11. Concluding his arguments, he
submits that there is no perversity or
unlawfulness in the judgment and order
dated
31.03.2023
and
therefore,
no
interference is warranted.

12. Having heard counsels for the
parties and after perusal of material placed
on record it transpires that a pea has been
raised
challenging
the
order
dated
31.03.2023 that the learned trial court has
erroneously invoked its jurisdiction under
section 319 of Cr.P.C. while summoning
the accused-revisionist. From perusal of the
judgment and order, it transpires that prior
to the order of sentence, the learned trial
court while discussing the facts and
circumstances on internal page 22 onwards
of the judgment, has summoned the accusedrevisionist under section 319 of Cr.P.C. The
first set of argument of learned counsel for
the revisionist was that on the date of the
pronouncement, the trial court is not
empowered to invoke its jurisdiction under
section 319 of Cr.P.C. and the second set of
argument is that there was no material
evidence against the revisionist which could
show that there was much stronger case to
summon the revisionist while invoking its
jurisdiction under section 319 of Cr.P.C.

13. When this Court examines the first
set of argument of learned counsel for the
revisionist that the learned trial court has no
jurisdiction to invoke its power under section
319 of Cr.P.C., at the time of pronouncement
of the judgment, it is very much evident from
the law propounded by the Apex Court in
case of Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of
Punjab, which was answered in paragraph
39(I) that power under section 319 of Cr.P.C.
can be invoked and exercised before the
pronouncement of the order of sentence and
so far as the present revisionist's case is
concerned, the learned trial court has
exercised its jurisdiction under section 319 of
Cr.P.C., prior to the order of sentence and
thus, there is no erroneousness in the
impugned judgment and order.

14. So far as the second set of
argument
with
respect
to
the
non-
80 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
application of mind regarding the material
evidence
of
facts
and
circumstances
discussed with the trial court is concerned,
from page 22, there is detailed discussion
of the evidences as well as the statement of
the witnesses regarding the involvement of
the revisionist in the offence and thus, there
seems to be no unlawfulness in the
judgment and order of the trial court
regarding the application of mind to come
to the conclusion that there was much
stronger
case
available
against
the
revisionist and therefore, there is no
substance or force in the second set of
argument of learned counsel for the
revisionist.

15. Resultantly, the instant revision
has no merit and is hereby dismissed.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 80
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 564 of 2023

Ranjit Singh ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Lalit Kumar Shukla

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 397/401 -
Revision - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 323, 504 & 304 part-1 - court not
permitted to sit in revision review or recall
of its own order under the garb of
provisions of Section 216 that charge can
be altered at any stage of the case.(Para -
6)
FIR was filed by first informant - allegation -
their brother was playing a match with accused
- During match, an altercation occurred -
attacked with a cricketing bat - causing him to
die - session trial began on a chargesheet filed
under Sections 302, 323, 504 IPC - session
court framed a charge under Sections 302/34,
323/34, and 504 IPC - accused persons applied
for a conversion of charge to Sections 323, 504,
and 34 IPC- session judge concluded - prima
facie offence was made out under Sections 323,
504, and 304 part-1 IPC. (Para -3)

HELD:-Trial court can alter a charge based on
new evidence, but cannot re-appraise the
evidence without a change in circumstances.
This is not permissible under Section 362 of
Cr.P.C, as it creates disorder and chaos in
judicial proceedings. While good grounds may
exist, it cannot be construed as a prohibition
against altering charges for good reasons.(Para
-8 )

Revision allowed. (E-7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna
Sharma, J.)

1. Heard Sri Lalit Kumar Shukla,
learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri
O.P. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State.
None responds for respondent no. 2 despite
service of notice.

2. By means of this criminal revision,
a judgment and order dated 22.11.2022
passed by Additional Session Judge/Special
Judge (POCSO Act), Mathura in S.C. No.
740 of 2022 (State vs. Jeetu @ Jitendra)
arising out of Case Crime No. 57 of 2022,
under Sections 323, 504, 304 part-1 IPC,
Police Station Farah, District Mathura has
been challenged.

3. The relevant facts are as below:-