AFR Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1981 of 2021 Revisionist :- Upendra @ Mohit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Anil Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned Additional Government Advocate-I appearing alongwith Ms. Sushma Soni, learned Additional Government Advocate, for the State-opposite party. 2. The present criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 18.03.2021 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court no.4, Hathras in S.T. No.396 of 2015 (State vs. Girendrapal and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.700 of 2014, under Sections 308, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Sasni, District Hathras, whereby the revisionist has been summoned by the court below in exercise of powers under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has sought to assail the order passed by the court below by referring to the factual aspects of the case to contend that the revisionist has 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 him, there was no further material on the basis of which the trial court could have summoned the revisionist. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate-I has controverted the assertions made by the counsel for the revisionist by drawing attention to the fact that the revisionist herein was named in the FIR and as per the FIR version he was assigned a specific role. Attention has been drawn to the fact that the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 during the course of trial have pointed to the complicity of the revisionist and his 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 Punjab2. 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.