IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.20232 of 2007 HARI NARAYAN MAHTON Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 4 13.5.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Since the petitioner has been summoned to face trial under section 319 of the Cr. P. C. vide order dated 8.3.2007 by the Additional Sessions Judge FTC-III, Begusarai in Sessions Trial No. 175 of 2004, the present application under section 482 of the Cr. P.C. has been filed. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that after investigation of the case the police filed final form in so far as this petitioner is concerned whereas the other accused persons were sent up for trial. Further it is also alleged that due to past incidence between the parties an FIR in the year 2001 was filed by the petitioner against the informant of the case and the present case is in the retaliation of the same. These circumstances according to the petitioner are good enough that the petitioner should not be asked to undergo trial. But in the impugned order the learned Additional Sessions Judge categorically records in paragraph-4 that 14 witnesses came to be examined and out of 14 witnesses most of the witnesses have categorically stated the role of the present petitioner in addition to other accused persons who are already facing trial. The trial court is therefore of a considered opinion that - 2 - there is sufficiency of material and evidence during the course of trial and exercise of power under section 319 of the Cr. P.C. is required. The Court has gone through the impugned order and the reasoning assigned by the trial court. It cannot be said that the trial court has summoned the petitioner under section 319 of the Cr. P. C. on flimsy ground based on no evidence or material. If there is consistency in statement coming from the witnesses about the participation of the petitioner in the said crime, merely because the police had not sent up him to face trial on the basis of the investigation made earlier, the same may not bail out the petitioner from the culpability of the crime. The order has no infirmity. This application is accordingly dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)