HARBANS LAL, J. - (1.) -The instant criminal revision petition u/s. 397 r/w Section 401 Cr. P. C. is directed against the order dated 21. 7. 2003 whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Tonk has declined to take cognizance u/sec. 319 Cr. P. C. against co-accused persons namely; Shakti, Banno, Amar Chand, Deepak, Kalia, Rajveer, Bhakti, Balbeer, Vinod, Neeraj and Roop Narayan in Sessions Case No. 14/02 pending trial before that court against 25 persons including the petitioners for the offences u/ss. 147, 148, 149, 324, 326, 307 and 149 I. P. C.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State and have also perused the order impugned. It may be stated at the out-set that the petitioners have sought cognizance against the above named 11 co-accused persons after recording of the statements of 46 witnesses and at the penultimate stage of final arguments in the case. It also cannot be disputed that if cognizance is taken against the above named accused at this inordinately belated stage, the proceedings in respect of them will have to be recommenced afresh which would mean that the entire evidenced thus far collected and the time spent by the court in recording the same besides the costs involved would all become colossal waste. It is note worthy that neither the learned Public Prosecutor nor the complainant has made any request for taking cognizance against the above named 11 accused persons whom the police after investigation did not find involved in the occurrence. Section 319 of the Code is extracted here: 319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence:- (1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. (2) Where such person is not attending the court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. (3) Any person attending the court,. although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed. (4) Where the court proceeds against any person under sub- section (1) then- (a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and witnesses re-heard; (b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced. " This section can be invoked where it appears to the court from the evidence collected during the trial or in the inquiry that some other person who is not arraigned as an accused in the case has committed the alleged offence for which he could also be tried together with the accused already arraigned. But the power so conferred on the court is discretionary for the exercise of which it is not sufficient that the court merely entertains some doubt about his involvement in the offence. The court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence on record that such other person has committed the offence which means that there should be reasonable prospect of his being convicted of the offence concerned and such other person could as well be tried together with the already arraigned accused. In the case of `municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi (1), the Hon'ble Apex Court has struck a note of caution and has held that this power is an extraordinary and discretionary power which should be exercised very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist. The Hon'ble Apex Court has in the case of Michael Machado and Anr. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr. (2), laid down certain guidelines for the courts for the exercise of power u/s. 319 Cr. P. C. which are as under:- " It is not that the court should turn against another person whenever it comes across evidence connecting that other person also with the offence. A judicial exercise is called for, keeping a conspectus of the case, including the stage at which the trial has proceeded already and the quantum of evidence collected till then, and also the amount of time which the court had spent for collecting such evidence. It must be remembered that there is no compelling duty on the court to proceed against other persons. ' Their lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court have further observed as under:- " The court while deciding whether to invoke the power under Section 319 of the Code, must address itself about the other constraints imposed by the first limb of sub-section (4), that proceedings in respect of newly-added persons shall be commenced afresh and the witnesses re-examined. The whole proceedings must be recommenced from the beginning of the trial, summon the witnesses once again and examine them and cross- examine them in order to reach the stage where it had reached earlier. If the witnesses already examined are quite large in number the court must seriously consider whether the objects sought to be achieved by such exercise are worth wasting the whole labour already undertaken. Unless the court is hopeful that there is a reasonable prospect of the case as against the newly- brought accused ending in being convicted of the offence concerned we would say that the court should refrain from adopting such a course of action. '
(3.) IN the instant case, as indicated earlier the trial is at penultimate stage of final arguments after recording of as many as 46 witnesses. The learned trial court has in the impugned order referred to the nature of evidence that has come on record and appears to have no reasonable satisfaction that the accused persons sought to be arrayed in the case may be convicted of the alleged offence. Thus, looking to the stage of the case and the nature of evidence against the accused persons who are sought to be arraigned in the case along with already arranged accused and all other facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court, no case for taking cognizance is made out. So there is no cogent and valid reason to interfere with the impugned order declining to take cognizance. Consequently, this revision petition being devoid of merit and substance deserves to be and is hereby rejected. .;