IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No. 210 of 2011 with Stay Application No. 990 of 2011 Raju Thapa S/o Late Bahadur Singh Thapa Teacher Junior High School Gairad Bilkhet, At present R/o Jogyaniro Bhatrola P.S Kotwali, Tehsil and District Bageshwar .....................Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand ………...….......Respondent Smt. Pushpa Joshi, Advocate, present for the revisionist Shri Nandan Arya, A.G.A., present for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. (2) This revision is directed against order dated 08.08.2011, passed by Sessions Judge, Bageshwar in Sessions Trial No. 04 of 2011 State vs. Raju Thapa, relating to offence punishable under section 376, 506 2 I.P.C., and under section 4/6 of Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986. (3) The impugned order shows that after PW7 Darshan Singh was examined by the prosecution, an application was moved by the accused Raju Thapa (present revisionist) to summon the PW1 Dalip Singh and PW7 Darshan Singh as co accused in the case. PW1 Dalip Singh is complainant of the case, PW7 Darshan Singh is the witness through whom PW1 got prepared the compact disk of the video prepared by the accused (revisionist) in the Mobile Phone, for producing the same as an evidence showing the conduct of the accused Raju Thapa (revisionist). (4) The trial court has given detailed reasons for declining to accept the request of the accused to summon the two prosecution witnesses as accused. It is stated by the trial court that the evidence adduced by Dalip Singh is that he got compact disk prepared from Darshan Singh to produce the evidence against the accused about rape of the victim, after he got the video recorded in the mobile phone by the accused. The accused is already facing trial not only in respect of offence punishable under section 376 of I.P.C., but also in respect of 506 I.P.C, and one punishable under section 4/6 of Indecent Representation of Women 3 (Prohibition) Act, 1986. The trial court has observed that since there appears no mens rea on the part of the witnesses, as such, there is no need to summon them as an accused by Exercising Power under section 319 of Cr.P.C. (5) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist, and after going through the impugned order passed by the Sessions Judge, this court finds no scope to interference with the impugned order. (6) Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to final merits of the case, the revision is dismissed summarily. (Stay Application No. 990 of 2011 also stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.23.08.2011 N.P