JUDGMENT This petition is filed against the order dt. 24.1.94 whereby the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Criminal Revision No. 227/90, dismissed the revision petition against the order dt. 25.5.90 and 26.5.90 of J.M.F.C, Durg in Criminal Case No. 1514/89 pending before him. The Magistrate has passed an order purporting to be under section 319 CrPC that application of the accused Narottam Lal (who is respondent No. 2 before this Court) directing that Kamla Bai, the present petitioner (who was cited as a witness in Criminal Case before the Magistrate) be summoned as a co-accused. The facts of the crime were as under -- Narottam Lal sold a piece of land by the name of plot 9 and 10 out of Khasra No. 35/2 measuring 4270 sq. ft. to Anand Prakash on 12.10.1973. by registered sale deed. Later on 28.11.1975, Narottamlal accused sold about 1,000 sq. ft. of plot to Kamla Bai, the present petitioner and allegation in the charge sheet are that part of the land sold to Kamla Bai, includes the portion sold to Anand Prakash, Kamla Bai has sold the land purchaser by her, further to Anand Kumar Verma on 09.11.77 and Anand Kumar Verma has raised construction on it. Anand Prakash, the initial purchased felt aggrieved and lodged a complaint in Police Station. Durg on 2.4.1983 that there was a cheating involved in the conduct of Narottam Lal and after investigation, challan was filed against Narottam Lal. Kamla Bai as well as Anandram have been cited witnesses by prosecution. When evidence was being recorded, the accused Narottam (who is respondent No. 2 here) filed an application u/s 319 CrPC and on concession by the A.P.P., that was accepted by the Magistrate and Kamla Bai, the present petitioner, was summoned as a co-accused. Apparently, the order of summoning Kamlabai a co-accused was an abuse of the process of Court of Magistrate as it amounts to negative the availability of evidence itself. The sale by Narottam to Anand Prakash was under title while the sale by Narottam to Kamlabai, atleast in respect of part of the property, was alleged by in respect of the area already sold to Anand Prakash. The sale by Narottam to Anand Prakash was under title while the sale by Narottam to Kamlabai, atleast in respect of part of the property, was alleged by in respect of the area already sold to Anand Prakash. So, it was Kamlabai who was cheated and if we remove Kamla Bai from the list of witnesses and transfer her to the list of accused, we are obliterating vital evidence and a purchaser who is being cheated can hardly be called an accused. Learned counsel for State says that it is strange in this case that the prosecution conceded to the impugned order. It shows how the mind of the prosecutor was working in favour of obliterating of vital evidence so that Narottm Lal could be protected. The prosecution has duty to act carefully and not to side with one party or the other. The concerned prosecutor deserves condemnation in this respect. The confirming order of the Additional Sessions Judge and the order of the Magistrate deserves to be set aside straight away. These orders are set aside and the petition u/s 319 CrPC is dismissed. Kamlabai cannot be arrayed as an accused to be tried in this case. A copy of this order be sent to the Magistrate at once as well as to the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Durg.