MUKUL GOPAL MUKHERJI, J. ( 1 ) IN the present revisional application the petitioner who IS the defacto complainant impugns an order dated 23rd December, 1986 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malda whereby her Naraji application filed on 1/10/1986 was held to be not maintainable and hence dismissed. ( 2 ) PURSUANT to a F. I. R. lodged by the petitioner implicating the present opposite parties Nos. Ito 7 as also other accused persons, police registered Harish chandrapur P. S. Case No. 1 date 4. 1. 85 under Sections 147/148/149/ 448/427/323/304 I. P. C. against the present opposite parties Nos. 1 to 7 and nine other persons including Jullu Junu, Mashed Makshad Kashim Kashim Mian, Manlu Manilu Mian, Fulia. Tamaluddin@ Tamaluddin Mian, Madari Ali Alimuddin and Alo Mian Alo Mian. In a much as prima facie case under sections 147/148/149/337/448/323/ 421/304 I. P. C. was found to have been established against the last nine, police submitted a prayer to the effect that the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 7 might be discharged since no sufficient evidence could be collected against them during investigation, The accused Fulia was shown as an absconder in the said charge sheet. ( 3 ) THE prosecution story in a nut shell is that on 4. 11. 85 at about 9. 00 hrs. the accused Jullu Juhu and several others of the same locality being armed with deadly weapons like hasua etc. assaulted one Baoiruddin due to previous enmity order a disputed plot of land as a result whereof the said Badiruddin received injury on his person and he ultimately succumbed to his injury. The learned Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate. Malda by his order dated 17. 6. 86 took cognizance of the aforesaid offence against eight accused persons on the basis of the charge-sheet and issued process against them. But the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 7 were discharged by the learned Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate since they were not sent up in the charge-sheet. ( 4 ) ON 1st October 1986 the defacto complainant the present petitioner filed a Naraji application in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malda against the accused opposite parties Nos. 1 to 7, inter alia, with a prayer for treating the said application either as fresh complaint or for directing police for further investigation. The allegations are to the effect that on 4. 1 to 7, inter alia, with a prayer for treating the said application either as fresh complaint or for directing police for further investigation. The allegations are to the effect that on 4. 11 85 at about 9 a. m. the accused opposite parties Nos. 1 to 7 along with others altogether numbering 16, being armed with deadly weapons like lathi, husua etc. due to previous grudge criminally trespassed into the house of the petitioner and started causing mischief by cutting banana trees etc. when her husband sustained injuries on his head and the accused persons fell him on the ground and assaulted him with fists, blows and kicks and that the present petitioner and her daughter lulekha in their attempt were also assaulted by the accused persons with fists and blows. All the neighbouring villagers came running to the place of occurrence and then the accused persons fled away, that the petitioners husband succumbed to his injuries on 5. 11. 85 at Harishchandrapur Primary Health Center and that the present petitioner lodged a written complaint with Harishchandrapur Police Station on 4/11/1985 whereupon police started Harishchandrapur P. 5. Case No. 1 dated 4/11/1985 against 16 persons including the present-accused-opposite parties Nos. 1 to 7 that the police did not make proper investigation against the accused-opposite parties Nos. 1 to 7 and from the evidence collected it would transpire that the accused opposite parties Nos. 1 to 7 were also involved in the commission of the offence and that a number of material witnesses had not been examined by the police. ( 5 ) THE learned Magistrate, however, put up the records of the case No. 537 of 1986 along with case diary of Harishchandrapur Case No 1 dated 4/11/1985 and on 20/11/1985 after hearing both the sides, ultimately by his order dated 23/12/1986. dismissed the Naraji petition holding, inter alia, that the defacto compliant filed the application termed Naraji application after a lapse of about four months from the date of taking cognizance and his considered opinion, once cognizance is taken, the learned. Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and not of the offenders and it was his duty to find out who the offenders really were and once he came to the conclusion that apart from the persons who were being tried some other persons were also involved, it was his duty to proceed against them. too. Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and not of the offenders and it was his duty to find out who the offenders really were and once he came to the conclusion that apart from the persons who were being tried some other persons were also involved, it was his duty to proceed against them. too. Section 311 Cr. P. C. empowered any court at any stage of any enquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code, to summon any persons as a witness or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness or recall or re-examine a person already examined and the Court has the powers to summon or recall and re-examine any such person, if his evidence appeared to be essential to the just decision of the case. Similarly under Section 319 Cr. P. C. there was every scope and opportunity for the Court to proceed against such person for the offence, which he appeared to have committed, where in course of any inquiry into or trial of an offence, it appeared from the evidence that any person not being the accused had committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was of the view that this statutory provision would come in aid of an aggrieved complainant sine the present one in an appropriate case and no Naraji complaint was entertain able in the facts and circumstances of the present case. ( 6 ) MY attention has been drawn to a decision of our Court in the case of Goni Sk and ors. v. State of West Bengal and anr decided by Borooah and B. N. Maitra, JJ. In that case police submitted charge-sheet against 6 persons and discharged the rest and subsequently a second complaint against some 17 persons was filed before the same Magistrate who dismissed the second complaint on grounds that if sufficient materials were available against the persons in course of the trial, be had ample power to take cognizance against all of them. The Division Bench under the circumstances held that the principles embodied in Section 319 (1) Cr. P. C. could be invoked and the Magistrate was competent to dismiss the second complaint: In this context the decision Joginder Singh and anr. v. State of Punjab and anr was relied upon and those in Abhinanda Jha and ors. The Division Bench under the circumstances held that the principles embodied in Section 319 (1) Cr. P. C. could be invoked and the Magistrate was competent to dismiss the second complaint: In this context the decision Joginder Singh and anr. v. State of Punjab and anr was relied upon and those in Abhinanda Jha and ors. Dinesh Mitra and Tula Ram v. Kishore Singh were distinguished. In the Supreme Court decision in the case Joginder Singh and anr. v. State of Punjab (supra) it was held that the Sessions Court has power to add any person for trial without there being a committal order against such person. Under the new Criminal Procedure Code the case and not the accused are committed and hence expression Tany person not being accused under Section 319 does not exclude person dropped under Section 169 Cr. P. C. of the Code of 1898. The summoning of additional person by the Sessions Court under Section 319 Cr. P. C. of those who appear to have been involved in the crime from the evidence led during the trial and directing them to stand their trial along with those who have been committed, must be regarded as incidental to the cognizance under Section 193 and part of the normal process that follows it. Section 319 (4) (b) enacts a deeming provision in this behalf dispensing with the formal committal order against the newly added accused persons. The phrase any person not being the accused in Section 319 does not exclude from its operation an accused who has been released earlier by the police under Section 169. ( 7 ) TAKEN in this context I no hold that the order as passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malda is perfectly in order and it would be open for the learned Sessions Judge in ultimate analysis to find out the complicity of the present accused-opposite parties Nos. 1 to 7 and if their guilt no appear, they may also be proceeded against in accordance with keeping in view the provisions of Section 319 Cr. P. C. ( 8 ) IN the result the revisional application stands dismissed. Leave is granted to the petitioner to file an appropriate application under Section 319 Cr. P. C. through the Public Prosecutor conducting the trial at the opposite stage. .