Honble SAXENA, J. - This petition filed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 11.1.91 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No. 38/89 "State vs. Bhaguta & Ors." u/ss. 302, 307 IPC, whereby the application filed by the accused non-petitioners was allowed and it was directed that all the prosecution witnesses be re- examined. (2). Initially, the police submitted charge sheet against co- accused Bhaguta, Heera, Mohan and Kana only. The charge was framed against them, who pleaded not guilty and the statements of as many as fourteen prosecution witnesses were recorded. Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor filed an application u/s. 319 Cr.P.C, which was allowed and by order dated 6.11.89, cognizance against accused non-petitioners Udai Singh and Bhanwar Singh for the said offences was also taken, who after their appearance, filed an application praying that the trial of the case be commenced afresh and all the prosecution witnesses be called for recording their statements. By the impugned order, the learned trial Judge accepted that application against which this petition has been filed. (3). The contention of Mr. T.S. Champawat, learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner, is that it is not necessary to re-examine all the prosecution witnesses and that the accused persons should only be allowed to further cross-examine those witnesses. According to him, if the prosecution witnesses are directed to be examined afresh, it will adversely affect the prosecution case. (4). I am afraid this contention is devoid of any force, misplaced and against the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. Section 319 (1) Cr.P.C. empowers the court to proceed against any person for the offence, which he appears to have committed, if 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. Sub clause (4) of Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. specifically provides that where the court proceeds against any person under sub-section(l), then the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh and the witnesses re-heard. Sub clause (4) of Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. specifically provides that where the court proceeds against any person under sub-section(l), then the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh and the witnesses re-heard. Therefore, it is abundantly apparent that once a person is arrayed as an accused and cognizance of an offence is taken against him u/s. 319 Cr.P.C. and he is tried together with other accused persons then the proceedings in the case shall be commenced afresh and the witnesses will be re-heard because as per provisions of Sec. 273 Cr.P.C, all evidence taken in the course of the trial or other proceedings shall be taken in presence of the accused. The examination of a witness includes the examination-in-chief, cross-examination and re-examination. Therefore, when the trial of the case is to commence afresh all the evidence has to be taken in presence of the accused and simply by calling the prosecution witnesses for further cross-examination, it will not meet the requirements of Sec. 319 (4) Cr.P.C. as also the provisions of Sec. 273 Cr.P.C. (5). In such circumstances, in my considered opinion, the learned trial Judge has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order calling all the prosecution witnesses for their re-examination. (6). In the result, this petition is devoid of any force and substance and the same is hereby dismissed. The record of the lower court be immediately sent back. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhilwara on 22nd Feb. 1995 for further proceedings in the matter.