JUDGMENT 1. - In this revision petition, the order dated July 3, 1993 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar in Sessions Case No. 6/87 (45/86) is being challenged. 2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has taken cognizance against the petitioners in exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. after recording the statements of 15, prosecution witnesses. 3. Two-fold submissions were made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The first submission is that the police did not submit charge sheet against the petitioners, after a thorough investigation and no cognizance was taken against them by the concerned Magistrate when charge sheet was submitted. Thereafter, non-petitioner No. 2 Mangla filed a complaint against the left-out accused, including the petitioners, before the concerned Magistrate. After holding an inquiry under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. Hence, the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The second contention is that powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. are of extra-ordinary nature and the same should be exercised sparingly, but the Additional Sessions Judge took cognizance against the petitioners without making critical analysis of the evidence of all the witnesses examined by him. 4. In my view the submissions made by the learned Counsel have merit. Section 319 (1) reads as under: "319. Power to proceed against other person 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 proceeding against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed." A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that the expression does not cover any person, who has been made an accused at any stage of inquiry or trial about the incident. In the instant case, a complaint was filed against the left-out accused persons, including the petitioners, in the Court of learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Danta Ramgarh. The learned Magistrate recorded statements of the complainant and other witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and dismissed the complaint vide order dated 25.2.1989 which is a detailed order. A certified copy of the said order has been placed on the record. The learned Magistrate recorded statements of the complainant and other witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and dismissed the complaint vide order dated 25.2.1989 which is a detailed order. A certified copy of the said order has been placed on the record. Similarly, a certified copy of the complaint and the certified copies of statements of the witnesses have also been placed on record before this Court. In the order dated 25.2.89 the learned Magistrate has considered the matter from every angle and thereafter, dismissed the complaint, holding that no prima facie case was made out against the accused persons. In view of the aforesaid order, dismissing the complaint after holding an inquiry, the learned Additional Sessions Judge could not have taken cognizance in exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 5. The second contention raised by the learned Counsel also requires serious consideration. Normally, this Court does not re-appreciate the evidence in a matter where cognizance has been taken by the Subordinate Courts in exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. However, it appears that some of the prosecution witnesses have tried to implicate the petitioners, describing their specific part in the incident contrary to their previous statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. or by the Magistrate during an inquiry in the complaint. This shows that the subsequent statements is an after-thought with an ulterior object to implicate the petitioners.In view of the above discussions, I allow this petition and set aside the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge taking cognizance against the petitioners.The record of the Trial Court be sent immediately, so that, the learned Trial Court may proceed against other accused-persons, in accordance with law.Petition allowed. *******