IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 109 of 2011 Nasir S/o Mohd. Umar R/o Village Telpura, P .S. Buggawala, District Haridwar. ...…………. Revisionist Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home, Dehradun. 2. Khurshida W/o Ikram R/o Village Telpura, P.S. Buggawala, District Haridwar. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Parikshist Saini, Advocate, present for the revisionist. Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder, present for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2) This revision is directed against the order dated 15th of March 2011, passed by II Fast Track Court / Addl. Sessions Judge, Haridwar, in Sessions Trial No. 115 of 2009, whereby said court has summoned the revisionist under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. 3) Perusal of the impugned order and the papers on record show that the name of the revisionist Nasir, though 2 mentioned in the first information report along with other accused, but after investigation no offence was said to have been made out as against him, and charge sheet was filed against other accused, but not against accused Nasir. During trial, P.W. 1 Ikram (injured) has nowhere stated that the accused Nasir assaulted him or participated in commission of crime. Merely on the basis of half hearted mentioning of name of revisionist by P.W. 2 Khurshida whose statement was recorded on 29th of June 2010, the trial court has summoned the accused Nasir under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. 4) It is settled principle of law that powers under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly, and only when from all corners the trial court is convinced that such person has complicity in the crime. If the power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is exercised in casual or routine manner, any witness by improving the case at the time of recording of evidence name anyone in commission of crime. 5) For the reasons as discussed above, the impugned order, passed by the trial court, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The trial court has wrongly mentioned that P.W. 1 Ikram (injured) has named the revisionist in his statement. 3 6) Therefore, the revision is allowed, and the impugned order dated 15.03.2011, summoning the revisionist under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is hereby set aside. The trial court may proceed further with the trial against the other accused chargesheeted by the Investigating Officer. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. May 24, 2011. H. Negi