# Satyaprakash Rai Alias Dablu Rai & Anr. Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 473
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-18
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 2607 of 2025
- **Bench:** Devendra Singh-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satyaprakash-rai-alias-dablu-rai-anr-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52937
- **Pages:** 8

## Text

12 All. Satyaprakash Rai Alias Dablu Rai & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
473

13. It is settled law that when a person
approaches a Court, he should approach the
Court not only with clean hands but also
with clean mind, clean heart and clean
objective. It is a law of nature that one
should not be enriched by the loss or injury
to another. The judicial process should
never become an instrument of appreciation
or abuse or a means in the process of the
Court to subvert justice. No litigant has a
right to unlimited drought on the Court
time and public money in order to get his
affairs settled in the manner he wishes.
Easy, access to justice should not be
misused as a licence to file misconceived
and frivolous petitions. If a petitioner is
guilty of suppression of very important fact
his case cannot be considered on merits.
Thus, a litigant is bound to make "full and
true disclosure of facts".

14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Rekha
Sharad Ushir Vs. Saptashrungi Mahila
Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd. reported
in 2025 SCC OnLine SC641, para no. 11
is reproduced herein below:

" 11. It is settled law that a
litigant who, while filing proceedings in
the court, suppresses material facts or
makes a false statement, cannot seek
justice
from
the
court.
The
facts
suppressed must be material and relevant
to the controversy, which may have a
bearing on the decision making. Cases of
those litigants who have no regard for the
truth
and
those
who
indulge
in
suppressing material facts need to be
thrown out of the court."

15. In view of the said judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court, the opposite party no.
2 does not deserve any sympathy and is not
entitled to receive maintenance from the
revisionist.

16.
Accordingly,
the
impugned
judgment and order dated 17.02.2024
passed by the Principle Judge, Family
Court, Gautam Budha Nagar in Case
No.683 of 2019 (Neha Sahu Vs. Ankit
Saha), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is hereby
set aside.

17. Accordingly, the instant criminal
revision is allowed.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 473
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA SINGH-I, J.

Criminal Revision No. 2607 of 2025

Satyaprakash Rai Alias Dablu Rai & Anr.
 ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether the trial court had
lawfully exercised its jurisdiction u/s 319 of Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in summoning the
revisionists as additional accused in a sessions
trial u/s 302 IPC, despite their not having been
charge-sheeted by the Investigating Officer, and
whether the evidence adduced during trial was
of such quality and degree as to satisfy the
statutory threshold namely, stronger than a
mere prima facie case so as to justify their being
tried together with the accused already facing
trial.

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Code of
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - s. 319 -
The instant criminal revision arose out of
an order dated 21.04.2025 passed by
Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge,
E.C. Act, Azamgarh in Sessions Trial No.
196 of 2016, pertaining to an offence u/s
302 IPC, whereby the trial court, in
474 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
exercise of powers u/s 319 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, summoned the
revisionists to face trial along with the
other accused - The prosecution case
originated from an FIR in which the
revisionists were named and specific roles
were attributed to them in connection
with the homicidal incident, however,
upon completion of investigation, the
Investigating Officer did not submit a
charge-sheet against them - During the
course
of
trial,
the
testimonies
of
prosecution witnesses, particularly P.W.-
1, P.W.-3 and P.W.-4, allegedly disclosed
material
indicative
of
complicity
of
revisionists - On the basis of such
evidence emerging during trial, the court
below
formed
an
opinion
that
the
revisionists ought to be tried together
with the charge-sheeted accused and
consequently
passed
the
impugned
summoning
order,
which
has
been
challenged in the instant criminal revision.
Held: The evidence recorded by the court
during trial is thus to be accorded primacy and
for the purpose of exercise of power u/s 319 of
the Code would have to be given weight over
the material which was collected during the
course of investigation - The contention which
has been sought to be raised placing reliance
upon the material collected by the investigating
officer during the course of investigation, for the
purpose of exercise of powers u/s 319 of the
Code, thus cannot be accepted - The power u/s
319 of the Code to summon even those persons
who are not named in the charge-sheet to
appear and face trial, being unquestionable and
the object of the provision being not to allow a
person who deserves to be tried to go scot-free
by being not arraigned in the trial inspite of
possibility of his complicity which can be
gathered from the evidence during the course of
trial, the order passed u/s 319 of the Code
summoning the revisionists does not contain
any material error so as to warrant inference -
Thus, criminal revision is accordingly dismissed.
[Paras 20 to 22] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Hardeep Singh and Others v. State of Punjab,
(2014) 3 SCC; S. Mohammed Ispahani v.
Yogendra Chandak and others, (2017) 16
SCC; Rajesh and others v. State of Haryana,
(2019) 6 SCC 368; Saeeda Khatoon Arshi v.
State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2020) 2
SCC 323 - referred to

List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indian Penal
Code, 1860

List of Keywords
Criminal Revision, s.302 IPC; s. 319 Cr.PC;
Summoning Order; Exercise of Powers; Named
in the FIR; Assigned Specific Role; Investigating
Officer; Column 2 of Charge-sheet; Evidence
Recorded During Trial; Testimony of P.W.-1, P.W.-
3 and P.W.-4; Complicity of the Revisionists;
Cognizance;
Arraigned
as
Accused;
Tried
Together
with
the
Accused;
Degree
of
Satisfaction; More than Prima Facie Case;
Strong and Cogent Evidence; Material Collected
During
Investigation;
No
Material
Error;
Interference Warranted; Dismissal of Criminal
Revision

Case Arising From
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Revision
No. - 2607 of 2025

From the Judgment and Order dated 21.04.2025
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special
Judge, E.C. Act, Azamgarh in Sessions Trial No.
196 of 2016.

Appearances for Parties

Adv. for the Revisionist:
Ashish Gupta

Advs. for the Opposite Party:
Amrendra Nath Rai, G.A., Nidhi Rai

(Delivered by Hon'ble Devendra Singh-I, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashish Gupta, learned
counsel for the revisionists, Sri Amrendra
Nath Rai, learned counsel for the opposite
party
no.2
and
learned
Additional
Government Advocate, for the Stateopposite party.
12 All. Satyaprakash Rai Alias Dablu Rai & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
475

2. The present criminal revision has
been
filed
against
the
order
dated
21.04.2025 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge/Special Judge, E.C. Act,
Azamgarh in S.T. No.196 of 2016 (State
vs. Vedprakash Rai @ Mahanth Rai), under
Section
302
IPC,
Police
Station-
Gambhirpur, District-Azamgarh, whereby
the revisionist has been summoned by the
trial court in exercise of powers under
Section 319 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionists
has sought to assail the order passed by the
trial court by referring to the factual aspects
of the case to contend that the revisionists
have been falsely implicated in the criminal
case. He has submitted that the jurisdiction
under Section 319 of the Code is to be
exercised in an extra-ordinary situation
where there is a strong possibility of the
conviction of the accused, who is proposed
to be summoned, and the powers are not to
be exercised in a routine manner. It is
further pointed out that the Investigating
Officer did not find any material against the
revisionist and no charge-sheet having been
submitted against them, there was no
further material on the basis of which the
trial court could have summoned the
revisionist.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel
for the opposite party no.2 and learned
Additional Government Advocate have
controverted the assertions made by the
counsel for the revisionists by drawing
attention to the fact that the revisionists
herein were named in the FIR and specific
role has been assigned to them. Attention
has also been drawn to the fact that the
testimony of P.W.-1, P.W.-3 and PW-4
during the course of trial have pointed to
the complicity of the revisionists and their
clear role in the incident. It is also
contended that the testimony before the
trial judge would have to be given more
weight than the report submitted by the
Investigating Officer pursuant to the
investigation.

5.
Rival
contentions
fall
for
consideration.

6. The ambit and scope of the powers
of the Magistrate under Section 319 of the
Code were considered in the Constitution
Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in
Hardeep Singh and Others vs. State of
Punjab; (2014) 3 SCC. Referring to the
object of the provision it was held that the
object of the provision is that the real
culprit should not get away unpunished and
in a situation where the investigating
agency for any reason does not array one of
the real culprits as an accused, the court is
not powerless in calling the said accused to
face trial. It was stated thus :-

"8.The constitutional mandate
under
Articles
20
and
21
of
the
Constitution of India, 1950 provides a
protective
umbrella
for
the
smooth
administration of justice making adequate
provisions to ensure a fair and efficacious
trial so that the accused does not get
prejudiced after the law has been put into
motion to try him for the offence but at the
same time also gives equal protection to
victims and to society at large to ensure
that the guilty does not get away from the
clutches of law. For the empowerment of
the courts to ensure that the criminal
administration of justice works properly,
the law was appropriately codified and
modified by the legislature under CrPC
indicating as to how the courts should
proceed in order to ultimately find out the
truth so that an innocent does not get
476 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
punished but at the same time, the guilty
are brought to book under the law. It is
these ideals as enshrined under the
Constitution and our laws that have led to
several decisions, whereby innovating
methods and progressive tools have been
forged to find out the real truth and to
ensure that the guilty does not go
unpunished.

9.The presumption of innocence
is the general law of the land as every man
is presumed to be innocent unless proven to
be guilty. Alternatively, certain statutory
presumptions in relation to certain class of
offences have been raised against the
accused whereby the presumption of guilt
prevails till the accused discharges his
burden upon an onus being cast upon him
under the law to prove himself to be
innocent. These competing theories have
been kept in mind by the legislature. The
entire effort, therefore, is not to allow the
real perpetrator of an offence to get away
unpunished. This is also a part of fair trial
and in our opinion, in order to achieve this
very end that the legislature thought of
incorporating provisions of Section 319
Code of Criminal Procedure. It is with the
said object in mind that a constructive and
purposive interpretation should be adopted
that advances the cause of justice and does
not dilute the intention of the statute
conferring powers on the court to carry out
the abovementioned avowed object and
purpose to try the person to the satisfaction
of the court as an accomplice in the
commission of the offence that is the
subject matter of trial.

xx

12. Section 319 Code of Criminal
Procedure springs out of the doctrine judex
damnatur cum nocens absolvitur (Judge is
condemned when guilty is acquitted) and
this doctrine must be used as a beacon light
while explaining the ambit and the spirit
underlying the enactment of Section 319
CrPC.

13. It is the duty of the court to do
justice by punishing the real culprit. Where
the investigating agency for any reason
does not array one of the real culprits as an
accused, the court is not powerless in
calling the said accused to face trial. The
question
remains
under
what
circumstances and at what stage should the
court exercise its power as contemplated in
Section 319 CrPC.

xxx

17. Section 319 CrPC allows the
court to proceed against any person who is
not an accused in a case before it. Thus, the
person against whom summons are issued
in exercise of such powers, has to
necessarily not be an accused already
facing trial. He can either be a person
named in Column 2 of the chargesheet filed
under Section 173 Code of Criminal
Procedure or a person whose name has
been disclosed in any material before the
court that is to be considered for the
purpose of trying the offence, but not
investigated. He has to be a person whose
complicity may be indicated and connected
with the commission of the offence.

18. The legislature cannot be
presumed to have imagined all the
circumstances and, therefore, it is the duty
of the court to give full effect to the words
used by the legislature so as to encompass
any situation which the court may have to
tackle while proceeding to try an offence
and not allow a person who deserves to be
tried to go scot free by being not arraigned
in the trial in spite of possibility of his
complicity which can be gathered from the
documents presented by the prosecution.
12 All. Satyaprakash Rai Alias Dablu Rai & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
477

19.
The
court
is
the
sole
repository of justice and a duty is cast upon
it to uphold the rule of law and, therefore,
it will be inappropriate to deny the
existence of such powers with the courts in
our criminal justice system where it is not
uncommon that the real accused, at times,
get away by manipulating the investigating
and/or the prosecuting agency. The desire
to avoid trial is so strong that an accused
makes efforts at times to get himself
absolved even at the stage of investigation
or inquiry even though he may be
connected with the commission of the
offence."

7. As regards the degree of satisfaction
required for invoking the powers under
Section 319 of the Code, it was held that
the test that has to be applied is one 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. It was observed as follows :-

"105. Power under Section 319
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure
is
a
discretionary and an extra-ordinary power.
It is to be exercised sparingly and only in
those cases where the circumstances of the
case so warrant. It is not to be exercised
because the Magistrate or the Sessions
Judge is of the opinion that some other
person may also be guilty of committing
that offence. Only where strong and cogent
evidence occurs against a person from the
evidence led before the court that such
power should be exercised and not in a
casual and cavalier manner.

106. Thus, we hold that though
only a prima facie case is to be established
from the evidence led before the court not
necessarily tested on the anvil of CrossExamination, it requires much stronger
evidence than mere probability of his
complicity. The test that has to be applied
is one 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. In the absence of
such satisfaction, the court should refrain
from exercising power under Section 319
Code of Criminal Procedure. In Section
319 Code of Criminal Procedure the
purpose of providing if "it appears from the
evidence that any person not being the
accused has committed any offence" is
clear from the words "for which such
person could be tried together with the
accused." The words used are not "for
which such person could be convicted".
There is, therefore, no scope for the Court
acting under Section 319 Code of Criminal
Procedure to form any opinion as to the
guilt of the accused."

8. The question as to in what situations
the power under the section can be
exercised in respect of persons not named
in the FIR or named in the FIR, but not
charge-sheeted or discharged was also
considered, and it was held that a person
whose name does not appear even in the
FIR or in the charge-sheet or whose name
appears in the FIR and not in the chargesheet, can still be summoned by the court
provided the conditions under the section
stand fulfilled. It was observed as follows :-

"111.
Even
the
Constitution
Bench in Dharam Pal (CB) has held that
the Sessions Court can also exercise its
original jurisdiction and summon a person
as an accused in case his name appears in
Column 2 of the chargesheet, once the case
had been committed to it. It means that a
person whose name does not appear even
in the FIR or in the chargesheet or whose
478 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
name appears in the FIR and not in the
main part of the chargesheet but in Column
2 and has not been summoned as an
accused in exercise of the powers under
Section 193 Code of Criminal Procedure
can still be summoned by the court,
provided the court is satisfied that the
conditions provided in the said statutory
provisions stand fulfilled.

xxx

117.6 A person not named in the
FIR or a person though named in the FIR
but has not been chargesheeted or a person
who has been discharged can be summoned
under Section 319 Code of Criminal
Procedure provided from the evidence it
appears that such person can be tried
along with the accused already facing trial.
However, in so far as an accused who has
been
discharged
is
concerned
the
requirement of Sections 300 and 398 Code
of Criminal Procedure has to be complied
with before he can be summoned afresh."

9. The word 'evidence' as used under
Section 319(1) of the Code was also
considered and it was held as follows :-

"84.
The
word
"evidence"
therefore has to be understood in its wider
sense both at the stage of trial and, as
discussed earlier, even at the stage of
inquiry, as used under Section 319 Code of
Criminal Procedure.The court, therefore,
should be understood to have the power to
proceed
against
any
person
after
summoning him on the basis of any such
material as brought forth before it. The
duty and obligation of the court becomes
more onerous to invoke such powers
cautiously on such material after evidence
has been led during trial.

85. In view of the discussion
made
and
the
conclusion
drawn
hereinabove, the answer to the aforesaid
question posed is that apart from evidence
recorded during trial, any material that has
been received by the court after cognizance
is taken and before the trial commences,
can be utilised only for corroboration and
to support the evidence recorded by the
court to invoke the power under Section
319 Code of Criminal Procedure. The
"evidence" is thus, limited to the evidence
recorded during trial."

10. The principles with regard to
exercise of power by the court to summon
an accused under Section 319 of the Code
were reiterated in S. Mohammed Ispahani
Vs. Yogendra Chandak and others;
(2017) 16 SCC, and it was held that the
power under Section 319 to summon even
those persons who are not named in the
charge-sheet to appear and face trial, is
unquestionable. It was observed thus:-

"28. Insofar as power of the
Court Under Section 319 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, to summon even those
persons who are not named in the charge
sheet to appear and face trial is concerned,
the same is unquestionable. Section 319 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, is meant
to rope in even those persons who were not
implicated when the charge sheet was filed
but during the trial the Court finds that
sufficient evidence has come on record to
summon them and face the trial. In
Hardeep
Singh's
case
(supra),
the
Constitution Bench of this Court has settled
the law in this behalf with authoritative
pronouncement,
thereby
removing
the
cobweb which had been created while
interpreting this provision earlier. As far as
object behind Section 319 of the Code of
12 All. Satyaprakash Rai Alias Dablu Rai & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
479
Criminal Procedure, is concerned, the
Court had highlighted the same as under:

19. The court is sole repository of
justice and a duty is cast upon it to uphold
the Rule of law and, therefore, it will be
inappropriate to deny the existence of such
powers with the courts in our criminal
justice system where it is not uncommon
that the real accused, at times, get away by
manipulating the investigating and/or the
prosecuting agency. The desire to avoid
trial is so strong that an Accused makes
efforts at times to get himself absolved even
at the stage of investigation or inquiry even
though he may be connected with the
commission of the offence."

11. The power to proceed against
persons named in FIR with specific
allegations against them, but not chargesheeted, was reiterated in Rajesh and
others Vs. State of Haryana; (2019) 6
SCC 368, and it was held that persons
named in the FIR but not implicated in
charge-sheet can be summoned to face trial,
provided during the trial some evidence
surfaces against the proposed accused.

12. The exercise of powers under
Section 319 of the Code for summoning an
additional accused again came up for
consideration in Saeeda Khatoon Arshi
Vs.
State
of
Uttar
Pradesh
and
another; (2020) 2 SCC 323 and it was
held that it is the duty of the court to give
full effect to the words used by the
legislature so as to encompass any
situation which the court may have to
tackle while proceeding to try an offence
and not allow a person who deserves to
be tried to go scot-free by being not
arraigned in the trial inspite of the
possibility of his complicity which can be
gathered from the documents presented
by the prosecution.

13. In the case at hand the trial court
has taken note of the fact that the
revisionists were not only named in the FIR
but they were assigned the role in the
incident. The testimony of P.W.-1, P.W.-3
and PW-4 as being indicative of the
complicity of the revisionists have also
been referred. Upon considering the settled
legal position with regard to the exercise of
powers under Section 319, the court below
has passed the order summoning the
revisionists.

14. The FIR version as also the
testimony of the P.W.-1, P.W.-3 and PW-4
before the trial judge being indicative of the
complicity of the revisionists, though not
arraigned as accused in the charge-sheet, it
was open to the trial court to form a view
that the revisionists be tried together with
the other accused, and for the said purpose
summon the revisionists in exercise of
powers under Section 319 of the Code.

15. The broad principles which have
been laid down for exercise of powers
under Section 319 of the Code underline
the object of the enactment that the real
perpetrator of the offence should not get
away unpunished and in a situation where
the investigating agency for any reason
does not array any culprit as an accused the
court would not be powerless in calling the
accused to face trial; rather it would be
duty of the court to do justice by punishing
the real culprit.

16. The test which has been laid down
with regard to the degree of satisfaction
required for invoking the powers under
Section 319 is one 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.
480 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

17. The power to proceed under
Section 319 has also been held to be
exerciseable in respect of persons though
named in the FIR but not charge-sheeted
provided the court is satisfied that the
conditions provided under the section stand
fulfilled.

18. Section 319 (1) of the Code
envisages that 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.

19. The word evidence used under
Section 319(1) of the Code has been held to
be understood to refer to the evidence
recorded during trial, and also any material
that has been received by the court after
cognizance is taken and before the trial
commences, to be utilized for corroboration
and to support the evidence recorded by the
court.

20. The evidence recorded by the court
during trial is thus to be accorded primacy
and for the purpose of exercise of power
under Section 319 of the Code would have
to be given weight over the material which
was collected during the course of
investigation. The contention which has
been sought to be raised placing reliance
upon
the
material
collected
by
the
investigating officer during the course of
investigation, for the purpose of exercise of
powers under Section 319 of the Code, thus
cannot be accepted.

21. The power under Section 319 of
the Code to summon even those persons
who are not named in the charge-sheet to
appear and face trial, being unquestionable
and the object of the provision being not to
allow a person who deserves to be tried to
go scot-free by being not arraigned in the
trial inspite of possibility of his complicity
which can be gathered from the evidence
during the course of trial, the order passed
under Section 319 of the Code summoning
the revisionists does not contain any
material error so as to warrant inference.

22. Subject to aforesaid observations
the instant criminal revision is, accordingly,
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 480
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
THE HON'BLE VINAI KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Government Appeal No. 2576 of 1985

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
S. Vijai Singh ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Matter
pertains
to
consideration
of
a
Government Appeal under S. 378 Cr.P.C.
against
the
judgment
and
order
dated
22.05.1985 whereby the accused-respondents
were acquitted of charges under Ss. 147, 148,
302 read with S. 149 IPC, and whether the said
acquittal suffered from perversity or illegality
warranting interference by the appellate court.
(Paras 1, 6, 28-29)

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 147, 148,
302 r.w. S. 149 IPC - Criminal Trial -
Acquittal
- Interference in Appeal
-
Appellate court will not interfere unless
findings are perverse or illegal.