JUDGMENT 1. - This. misc. petitioner under section 482 Cr. P. C. is filed against the order dated 24.1.90 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Dholpur in case No. 23/90 State v. Kanwar Pal , by which, he directed that the warrant should be issued for the arrest of the petitioner and a separate file of the petitioner be opened while acquitting the accused Kanwarpal who has faced the trial in that case. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. A look at the records shows that the material facts of the case are that an F.I.R. 182/88 was registered at Police Station Sarmathura under section 302 IPC on the report of one Loku. Though the informant is not an eye witness but he had alleged ,that Horilal and Ramcharan fired by Pachfera and twelve bore gun respectively at deceased Lassu. According to the report Bhogi, Gokul and Ganpat were the eye witnesses. During investigation the statements of all the eye witnesses were recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. and all the eye witnesses did not allege that the petitioner was present at the time of incident.According to eye witnesses only three persons namely Horilal, Kanwarpal and the third person not known to them were present. Further it was stated that the gun fire was made by Horilal and Kanwarpal. In other words, it revealed from the statements recorded during the investigation that three persons were assailants of Lassu. The petitioner was not there. Kanwarpal made fire by twelve bore gun and Horilal by a Pachfera gun. The third person who fired on the deceased was not known to the witness. There is no dispute about the fact that so far the petitioner is concerned, he was known to the eye- witnesses. 3. The police had arrested Kanwarpal and recovered the twelve bore gun from his possession. The challan was submitted against Kanwarpal and a charge- sheet under Section 191 Cr. P. C. was filed against Horilal and Raja Ram. It is thus clear that no challan was filed against the petitioner as there was no evidence alleging him to be involved in the incident. The trial commenced against Kanwarpal in case No. 23/90. It appears that during the said trial the witnesses compromised with Kanwarpal and as such all the witnesses were declared hostile. The learned trial Court concluded the trial by acquitting Kanwarpal. The trial commenced against Kanwarpal in case No. 23/90. It appears that during the said trial the witnesses compromised with Kanwarpal and as such all the witnesses were declared hostile. The learned trial Court concluded the trial by acquitting Kanwarpal. But the trial Court in its judgement dated 24.1.90 directed that a separate file be opened against Horilal and the petitioner and issued warrants against them. A look at the record shows that the impugned order of the learned trial Court is illegal for the reasons that the issuance of the directions by the learned trial Court in its judgement in case No. 23/90 a novel procedure has been adopted for directing that a separate file be opened against the petitioner and arrest warrants be issued against him. 4. The learned Sessions judge has grossly erred in not taking into consideration the fact that no charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner and no such order could have been made in the judgement by which the trial against Kanwar Pal was concluded. Secondly, taking into consideration the entire evidence collected by the investigation Agency does not disclose any evidence against the petitioner though the the eye-witnesses in their statements under Section 141 Cr. P. C. mentioned about the third person. But they themselves state that he was not known to them whereas the petitioner is very well known to the eye- witnesses. Ultimately, the Investigating Agency did not file the charge-sheet against the petitioner and it has come to the conclusion that the third person was Rajaram S/o Ram Prasad Meena. Therefore, as per case of the prosecution itself neither there was any evidence against the petitioner nor the charge-sheet was filed against him. Thirdly, the learned Sessions Judge grosslyerred in not taking into consideration, that there is no procedure whatsoever under the Code of Criminal Procedure to issue the direction for opening the file against the person and directing for his arrest and a trial. The said order was passed in the judgement by the trial Court in the case of State v. Kanwar Pal . Such a method for criminal trial is foreign to the Code of Criminal Procedure and as such is wholly illegal. The said order was passed in the judgement by the trial Court in the case of State v. Kanwar Pal . Such a method for criminal trial is foreign to the Code of Criminal Procedure and as such is wholly illegal. The learned trial Court has erred in not taking into consideration the specific provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to the addition of person during the trial, in case the trial Court is of the opinion that evidence has come forth to the effect that some other persons are also accused of an offence. The specific provisions for such an eventually is provided only under Section 319 Cr. P. C. but in 110 circumstances there being no provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure to open or add any person as the accused or order for trial at the time of pronouncing the judgement. 5. For the above observations I find support from the case of Abhey Singh v. State of Raj. and Togga v. State of Raj. reported in 1985 R.L.R. 1048 wherein it has been held that when the judgment is announced, the trial comes to an end with it the power of the court under Section 319 Cr. P.C. also comes to an end. It has been further held that the Sessions Judge cannot direct separate trial in such a situation. Similar view is taken in the case of Togga v. State of Raj. reported in 1984 RLW 56 . In this case the court has given a detailed interpretation to the provisions of Section 319 Cr. P.C. and observed that the word appears in section 319 Cr. P.C. is deliberate and meaningful. Apart from the above mentioned position of law, the provision for adding some other persons as accused during the trial under Section 319 Cr. P.C. is an extra-ordinary power which has been introduced in the Code and it should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exists for taking cognizance against other persons. This has been so laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohatgi and Others reported in A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 67 . 6. This has been so laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohatgi and Others reported in A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 67 . 6. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case and the relevant provisions of law alongwith the above referred cases, the impugned order passed by the trial Court does not stand the tests of law and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. Consequently, this petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order dated 24.1.90 for issuing a direction in summoning the accused-petitioner is, therefore, set aside. The remaining part of the judgment is not in dispute in this petition so no opinion can be expressed for the remaining part of the judgment.Petition Allowed. *******