HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT- NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 32 of 2004 1. Bhopal S/0 Jagta, 2. Shobharam S/0 Dayal Singh, 3. Chatar S/o Dilbi, 4. Dheeru S/o Chatar, 5. Uday Singh S/o Baddan, All R/o Haripur Tongia, Police Chawki Bugawala, P.S. Ranipur, Haridwar. ….Revisionists. Vs. 1. State of Uttaranchal, 2. Additional Distt. & Sessions Judge/IVth F.T.C., Haridwar . … Respondent. Sri Parikshit Saini, Ad. for the Revisionists, Learned A.G.A. for the State. Dated: March 12, 2004 Hon’ble M.M.Ghildiyal, J. Heard Sri parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the revisionists and learned Asst. Government Advocate for the State and perused record. This revision is filed against the order dated 22.04.2003 passed by IVth F.T.C./Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 40 of 2000 summoning the revisionists by allowing the application u/s 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure moved by Asstt. District Government Counsel. In the impugned order the learned Appellate Court has narrated the facts that the revisionists were named in the F.I.R. but were not charge-sheeted. Their names were also disclosed by the witnesses. No reason has been given in the order as to why the revisionists should be summoned. Learned counsel for the revisionists has placed reliance on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Lochan and others v. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2001 Crl. L.J., page 4425. The case is squarely covered by the decision of the Allahabad High Court (supra). It is not disputed that the application u/s 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been allowed only by narrating the fact that the revisionists were named in the F.I.R. and further that the witnesses have disclosed the names of the revisionists. No reason has been recorded by the learned Addl, Sessions Judge in his order. In find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that against the application moved by the State u/s 319 Cr.P.C., he had moved protest application but the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has not considered the same. There is no mention about the protest filed by the revisionists in the order impugned. In view of the above, the revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.04.2003 is hereby quashed. No order as to costs. (M.M.Ghildiyal, J.) March 12,2004: NCM: