- (1.) The petitioners have preferred this criminal misc.petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the impugned order dated 21.4.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Laxmangarh District Alwar in Criminal Revision Petition No.39/2004 by which the learned revisional court by dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioners affirmed the order dated 11.3.2004 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Laxmangarh District Alwar in Regular Criminal Case No.286/2001 whereby the learned trial court while pronouncing judgment in that case took cognizance against the petitioners under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 148, 323, 325/149 and 326/149 IPC and ordered that the petitioners may be summoned through warrant of arrest.
(2.) The brief relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that for an incident dated 27.7.96 parcha-bayan of Smt.Angoori Devi was recorded on 29.7.96 and on that basis FIR No.152/96 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Alwar for offences under Sections 147,148,149,323,379,447 IPC against several persons including the present petitioners and after usual investigation charge sheet for offences under Sections 147,148,308,326,325,447 read with Section 149 IPC was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Kathumar District Alwar against seven persons but no charge sheet was filed against presentpetitioners. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions but that was sent for trial under Section 228 Cr.P.C. to the trial court for offences under Sections 148,323,325/149 and for offence under Section 326/149 IPC. The learned trial court framed charges against the persons against whom charge sheet was filed and the prosecution in support of the case produced oral as well as documentary evidence. After due trial, the learned trial court convicted four persons but acquitted three persons vide judgment and order dated 11.3.2004 and at the time of pronouncing judgment took cognizance against present petitioners for the offences under Sections 148,323,325/149 and 326/149 IPC under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioners filed revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. and the learned revisional court by the impugned order dated 21.4.2006 dismissed the revision petition. Still dissatisfied, the petitioners are before this court by way of this petition.
(3.) By assailing the impugned orders passed by the courts below the only contention made on behalf of the petitioners is that cognizance under Section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot be taken by a court at the fag end of the trial while pronouncing final judgment against the persons who were facing trial before the court. It was submitted that according to Section 319 Cr.P.C. cognizance against a new person can be taken only when the trial against the present accused is still going on by the reason that for the applicability of this provision it is necessary that the person already facing trial and the person against whom cognizance is proposed to be taken may be tried together. It was further submitted that as in the present case the trial against seven accused was already concluded and final judgment and order was pronounced by the trial court, so, the petitioners against whom cognizance has been ordered to be taken cannot now be tried alongwith them. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on Siya Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan,1992 RCC(Raj) 105.;