Dr. Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
(2.) This revision petition is directed against the order dt. 03.07.2009 whereby the learned trial Court has rejected the application of the complainant under Sec. 319 Cr. P.C. as the complainant sought to implicate the accused Amit Kumar S/o Sh Dalip Kumar (respondent No. 2 herein)
(3.) The learned Court below in the impugned order dt.03.07.2009 has clearly stated that in the FIR as well as the statements under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C the specific name of Amit Kumar was not mentioned either by the injured -complainant Bhoop Singh or any other witness, but the only person named was son of Dalip Kumar. The learned trial Court has concluded while rejecting the application under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C that said Dalip Kumar has four sons and without specific name, description of son or which son of Dalip Kumar being given, the respondent Amit Kumar could not be added as accused particularly when the trial was at the fag end.;