Uttarakhand High Court
Revisionist vs State Of Uttarakhand on 28 July, 2026
UKHC010180752024
2026:UHC:6511
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
CRLR/824/2024
Tarif Mohammad And Ors
--Revisionist
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. A.S. Rawat, Senior Advocate,
assisted by Mr. Gaurav Paliwal, Mr. Bilal
Ahmed and Mohd. Matlub, Advocates for
the revisionists.
Mr. S.S. Chauhan, Deputy Advocate
General and Mr. Vikas Uniyal, Brief
Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Senior Advocate,
assisted by Mr. Pavan Kumar Nath,
Advocate for respondent no.2.
2. By means of the present Criminal
Revision, the revisionists have challenged
the order dated 01.10.2024 passed by the
learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge,
Haridwar in Sessions Trial No.162 of
2021, whereby the learned trial Court, in
exercise of powers under Section 319 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
summoned the revisionists to face trial
along with the other accused persons.
3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing
for the revisionists submits that although
the names of the revisionists were
mentioned in the First Information Report,
the Investigating Officer, after conducting
a fair and detailed investigation, found no
credible material implicating them in the
UKHC010180752024
2026:UHC:6511
commission of the alleged offence and,
accordingly, did not submit charge-sheet
against them. It is contended that
revisionist no.1 was not present at the
place of occurrence on the date of the
incident and was working as a labourer in
another village. The said fact was verified
by the Investigating Officer through the
Call Detail Records (CDRs) as well as the
statements of co-labourers recorded
during the course of investigation. It is
further submitted that the Investigating
Officer also examined the CDRs of the
other revisionists, recorded the statements
of independent villagers under Section 161
Cr.P.C., and scrutinised other electronic
evidence, whereafter he arrived at the
conclusion that the revisionists were not
involved in the alleged incident. Learned
Senior Advocate has placed reliance upon
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of
Punjab and others, (2014) 3 SCC 92, to
contend that the power under Section 319
Cr.P.C. is extraordinary in nature and is
required to be exercised sparingly and
only where strong and cogent evidence
emerges during the course of trial, which
is much stronger than the material
required for framing of charge. It is, thus,
submitted that the evidence adduced
before the trial Court did not satisfy the
test laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court
and, therefore, the impugned order
deserves to be set aside.
4. Per contra, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for respondent no.2 supports
the impugned order and submits that the
same does not suffer from any legal
infirmity. It is contended that the names
of the revisionists find place not only in
the First Information Report but also in
the depositions of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3,
P.W.-4 and P.W.-5, who have consistently
UKHC010180752024
2026:UHC:6511
attributed specific roles to each of the
revisionists in the commission of the
offence. It is argued that while exercising
jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the
Court is required to examine whether the
evidence recorded during trial discloses
the involvement of a person not facing
trial, and not whether such evidence is
sufficient to record a conviction. It is
further submitted that the plea of alibi
raised by the revisionists constitutes a
matter of defence, which can only be
adjudicated upon during the course of
trial after appreciation of evidence, and
the same cannot be conclusively
determined while considering an
application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It
is, therefore, submitted that the learned
trial Court has rightly exercised its
jurisdiction after evaluating the evidence
that had surfaced during trial.
5. I have considered the rival
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties and have perused the
material brought on record. The scope and
ambit of the power under Section 319
Cr.P.C. has been authoritatively explained
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hardeep
Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others,
(2014) 3 SCC 92, wherein it has been held
that although the power is extraordinary
and is to be exercised sparingly, the Court
is empowered to summon a person not
charge-sheeted if strong and cogent
evidence emerges during the course of
trial indicating his involvement in the
commission of the offence. The Court is
not expected to conduct a mini trial or
record a finding of guilt at that stage;
rather, it is required to ascertain whether
the evidence adduced is such that, if left
unrebutted, it reasonably points towards
the involvement of the proposed accused.
UKHC010180752024
2026:UHC:6511
6. In the present case, the revisionists
were admittedly named in the First
Information Report. During the course of
trial, P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4 and
P.W.-5 have specifically named the
revisionists and assigned distinct roles to
them in the occurrence. Learned trial
Court has taken into consideration the
evidence which emerged before it during
trial and has recorded its satisfaction that
such evidence warranted exercise of
powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Merely
because the Investigating Officer did not
submit charge-sheet against the
revisionists would not preclude the trial
Court from exercising its independent
jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C., if
the evidence recorded before it discloses
their involvement. It is well settled that the
opinion formed by the Investigating Officer
is not binding upon the Court. So far as
the plea of alibi raised on behalf of the
revisionists is concerned, the same is
essentially a defence available to the
accused, the correctness whereof can only
be examined upon appreciation of
evidence during trial. Such a plea cannot
be conclusively adjudicated at the stage of
considering the legality of an order passed
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Harjinder
Singh Vs. State of Punjab & another,
reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1029 has
held that the plea of the alibi is the matter
of evidence that can only be determined
during trial and a mere claim that the
accused was elsewhere at the time of the
incident cannot outweigh the prosecution
prima facia evidence. Since the burden of
proving alibi lies on the accused, its
truthfulness must be tested through
evidence and cross-examination during
trial.
7. Having regard to the evidence
UKHC010180752024
2026:UHC:6511
available on record and the settled
principles of law governing the exercise of
powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C., this
Court is of the considered opinion that the
learned trial Court has exercised its
jurisdiction in accordance with law. No
jurisdictional error, perversity or material
illegality is discernible in the impugned
order warranting interference by this
Court in exercise of its revisional
jurisdiction.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision,
being devoid of merit, is dismissed.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
28.07.2026
Arpan
ARPAN Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20dddb7
JAISWAL
393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB98744
6351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL
Date: 2026.07.28 18:02:29 +05’30’
