- (1.) I. S. Mathur, J. Heard. The revisionist is aggrieved against the order dated 6-10-1994 summoning him under Section 319, Cr. P. C. in Sessions Trial No. 119 of 1993-State of U. P. v. Salet and others.
(2.) IT appears that initially the revisionist was not committed to the Court of Session but after the statement of the prosecutrix PW 1, Smt. Meenakshi was recorded an application was moved before the concerned court for summoning him under Section 319, Cr. P. C. On that application and in view of the statement made by the prosecutrix the Sessions Court has sum moned the revisionist. It is difficult to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist that the trial court could not have summoned the revisionist under Section 319, Cr. P. C. Relying upon the decision in Kishun Singh and others V. State of Bihar, 1993 (30) ACC 167:1993 JIC 443 (SC) the learned counsel contended that the power under Section 319, Cr. P. C. should be exercised sparingly. Learned counsel for the revisionist referred to the following obser vations in the report:- "therefore this sub-section contemplates existence of some evidence appearing in the course of trial wherefrom the court can prima facie conclude that the person not arraigned before it is also involved in the commission of the crime for which he can be tried with those already named by the police. " It is difficult to understand how these observations are of any help to the revisionist. It is mentioned in the impugned order itself that PW 1 Smt. Meenakshi the prosecutrix stated in her statement that the revisionist also committed rape on her. Quite obviously this statement has been made during the trial and the learned trial court has exercised discretion under Section 319, Cr. P. C. in view of some evidence that has been recorded during trial. Learned counsel for the revisionist then refers to the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court to the effect that "the cognizance against newly added accused is deemed to have been taken in the same manner in which cognizance was first taken of the offence against the earlier accused. " These observations are also of no help to the revisionist. This only means that whenever cogni zance is taken against a particular accused under Section 319, Cr. P. C. it will be deemed as if he was accused from the very beginning. The condition in this regard is that if evidence has been recorded it will be recorded again in presence of the newly added accused.
(3.) LEARNED counsel also refers to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and others, AIR 1983 SC 67 to the offset that the power under Section 319, Cr. P. C. is an extraordinary power which is conferred on the court and should be exercised very sparingly for taking cognizance against the other accused against whom cognizance has not been taken. The instant case is under Section 376, I. P. C. and the prosecutrix has stated in her statement that rape was committed by the revisionist also. It is difficult to imagine a more compelling circumstances. Accordingly this observation also cannot be said to be of any help to the revisionist. In view of the above the revision is devoid of merit and is dismissed. Revision dismissed. .;