JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor, for the State and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been filed against the order passed on 24th May, 1990 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisingh Nagar, in Criminal Case No. 14/89 State of Rajasthan v. Gini Devi . By the aforesaid order the learned Additional Sessions Judge refused to issue process against Ram Vilas and Smt. Meera Devi under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 3. According to prosecution on 4th September, 1986 Shri Kesari Chand submitted a report in writing at Police Station, Raisinghnagar stating therein that Smt. Kanta w/o Shri Pawan Kumar had committed suicide by setting fire to her clothes. On the basis of that report the Station House Officer of the Police Station, Raisinghnagar registered a case No. 32/86 of unnatural death and started proceedings under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code. During Police Investigation site inspection was done and inspection memo was prepared. On 5th September, 1986 Panchayatnama of the dead body of Smt. Kanta was prepared. The Police recovered from the place of occurrence ash, a kerosene container, pieces of bangles, match box, bedding and clothes. The post mortem examination of the dead body of Smt. Kanta was also conducted and her ornaments of gold and silver were also recovered from the dead body. On 5th September, 1985 Sita Ram, who is the father of the deceased lodged the first information report at the Police Station stating therein that Smt. Kanta was murdered by her mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law who used to torture her for not bringing sufficient dowry. On the basis of that report of Sita Ram, the Police registered a case under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. During investigation the investigation was enstrusted to Shri Kanti Prakash and thereafter, the investigation was entrusted to Police Inspector DCB Rajasthan, Jaipur. After investigation the Police submitted the report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the Court of Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar. According to that report the Police came to the conclusion that Smt. Gini Devi use to harass the deceased for bringing insufficient dowry and thereby she forced the deceased to commit suicide on 4th September, 1986. According to that report the Police came to the conclusion that Smt. Gini Devi use to harass the deceased for bringing insufficient dowry and thereby she forced the deceased to commit suicide on 4th September, 1986. The Police alleged the commission of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code against Srat. Gini Devi. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar, in due course committed the case the Court of learned Additional and District and Session Judge, Raisingh Nagar, and in the Court of Additional and District and Session Judge, Raisingh Nagar, an application was filed by Shri Sita Ram on 30th January, 1990. In that application he made a prayer to the effect that the offence#under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was made out and accused Meera and Ram Vilas who were not charge-sheeted by the Police should be proceeded against and they should also be charged and tried under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. A perusal of the record of the lower Court shows that charges under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code have been framed against Smt. Gini Devi and trial has already commenced and Ranjit Singh Saran PW-1 has been examined by the learned Additional Session Judge during trial. In these circumstances the stage for considering has not yet been reached whether any other person should or should not be proceeded against as an accused. Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that where, in the course of any enquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being 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 appears to have been committed. The explanation evidence in Sub-section (1) of Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code means the evidence produced during the enquiry or trial before the Court. In this case after the framing of the charge against Smt. Gini Devi, only one prosecution witness Ranjit Singh Saran PW-1 has been examined. There is nothing in his evidence to suggest that any person other than accused Gini Devi was also involved in the commission of alleged offence. In this case after the framing of the charge against Smt. Gini Devi, only one prosecution witness Ranjit Singh Saran PW-1 has been examined. There is nothing in his evidence to suggest that any person other than accused Gini Devi was also involved in the commission of alleged offence. Therefore, the stage for exercise of powers under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code has not yet been reached in this case. On this court alone this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. It may be pointed out that Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not the only Section which impose the Court to issue process against the accused person not sent up by the Police. Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code also empowers the Court which has taken cognizance of the offence or is in seisin of the case to issue process against the additional accused because cognizance is taken of the offence and not of the offender. In Raghuvansh Dubey v. State of Bihar, (AIR 1967 Page 1167) the Supreme Court held that once cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, he takes cognizance of an offence and not the offenders; once he takes cognizance of an offence it is his duty to find out who the offenders really are and once he comes to the conclusion that apart from the person sent up by the Police some other persons are involved, it is his duty to proceed against those persons. The summoning of the additional accused is the part of the proceedings initiated by taking cognizance of an offence. It is thus well established that after taking cognizance of an offence a Court can issue process against additional accused persons, under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code if there be sufficient grounds to adopt this course. In this case there is no direct evidence to show that Smt. Kanta did not commit suicide and was murdered. The evidence is only circumstantial. In the case of circumstantial evidence it is for the Court to draw inferences from the chain of circumstances established by evidence produced before the Court and in drawing inferences the Court is to be guided by the provisions of the Evidence Act. The evidence is only circumstantial. In the case of circumstantial evidence it is for the Court to draw inferences from the chain of circumstances established by evidence produced before the Court and in drawing inferences the Court is to be guided by the provisions of the Evidence Act. In this case the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisingh Nagar, has not deemed it fit to issue process against any additional accused under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It cannot be said that this refusal is unjustified or against law and the stage for exercise of powers under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code has not yet been reached. 5. Therefore, there is no force in this petition and the petition is dismissed with the observation that if during the trial sufficient evidence is produced before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisingh Nagar, to justify proceeding against any additional persons under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code then he would be within his powers to proceed against such additional accused persons as appeared to have been involved in the commission of any offence triable by him. With this observation the petition is dismissed.Petition dismissed with above observation. *******