Honble SINGH,J.– Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. (2). This petition is directed against the order dt. 1.6.1999 passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 358/1999 Om Prakash vs. The State of Rajasthan. (3). By order dated 01.06.99 the S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 358/1999 filed by the Om Prakash was dismissed on the ground that there was no sufficient ground to entertain the petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The facts of the case are briefly stated as under :- A complaint was filed against the petitioner Om Prakash and some others alleging the commission of offences under Section 18- C/27-B & C and Section 18-A & Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The complaint was filed on 15.07.1986 and cognizance of the offence was taken on the basis of the complaint. Trial was conducted and on 14.07.1987 the case was fixed for recording the statements of the accused person under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On that date an application was filed under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code, by the petitioner and it was prayed that the company named by the accused be impleaded as an co-accused. The application filed by the petitioner under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code was rejected by the Trial Court by order dated 22.10.1997. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 22.10.1997 passed by the trial court, a revision petition was filed in the Court of Sessions. The revision petition was dismissed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nimbahera vide order dated 02.04.1999 after considering all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. (4). Feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nimbahera and the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nimbahera, the petitioner filed the S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 358 of 1999 under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petition was listed in the court on 01.06.99, on that day none appeared for the petitioner. The Court after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case declined to admit the petition as the Court did not find any sufficient ground to entertain the petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petition was listed in the court on 01.06.99, on that day none appeared for the petitioner. The Court after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case declined to admit the petition as the Court did not find any sufficient ground to entertain the petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is against the order dated 01.06.1999 that the petitioner has filed this application with the prayer that order dated 01.06.1999 be recalled. (5). The ground on which this application has been filed is that the counsel for the petitioner proceeded to Sriganganagar on 28.05.99 on account of the marriage of his sister which was scheduled to take place on 21.06.99 and during the summer vacation the High Court listed the case in the Court on 01.06.99 without there being any application for early hearing and therefore the counsel for the petitioner was not present when the case was taken up for admission. There is no allegation that in the daily cause list of 01.06.99 the name of the counsel for the petitioner was not mentioned. (6). According to the practice of this High Court the cases are fixed by the Registry and the daily cause lists are prepared well in advance showing the names of the parties as well as the names for the counsels appearing for the parties and the daily cause lists are made available to the advocates so that they may appear in the Court when the case is called for hearing. It is for the learned Advocates to make arrangements for their appearance after the circulation of the daily cause list. Once the daily cause list was prepared and circulated, it was the duty of the counsel for the petitioner to make suitable arrangements for the representation of the petitioner in the Court when the case was taken up for hearing. He omitted to do it and as per averments made in the application proceeded to Sriganganagar without making any arrangements for the appearance of any advocate on behalf of the petitioner. He should thank himself for this act. The Court is not bound to adjourn the case if the parties or if the counsel do not appears when the case was called up for hearing. He should thank himself for this act. The Court is not bound to adjourn the case if the parties or if the counsel do not appears when the case was called up for hearing. On this ground alone this application for recalling the order dated 01.06.99 deserves to be recalling the order dated 01.06.99 deserves to be rejected. (7). There is another important reason for rejecting this application. Om Prakash is one of the accused in the trial pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nimbahera. He is neither a complainant in the case nor, he has filed any complaint against any person much less against the accused whom he wants to be proceeded against under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code. His status in the trial is that of a accused and he is neither a witness nor a complainant. Once his application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected by the Court, there was no occasion for him, to file any revision application before the Court of Sessions or to file any petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code before this Court with a request that process be issued against the additional accused named by him, under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code. An accused cannot be treated as a complainant in the trial which is being conducted against him. He cannot be examined by the Court as a complainant or a witness for the prosecution. He cannot be directed to produce any document incriminating him and any additional accused and in no case he can be permitted or directed to take part in the prosecution during the trial which is being conducted against him. In the circumstances, the accused does not appear to have any locus standi as a prosecutor or as a person aggrieved by the order refusing to proceed against any person under Section 204 or 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the petition filed by the petitioner was not maintainable particularly, when the trial Magistrate as well as the Sessions Court found no sufficient ground against the additional accused named by the accused in the application filed under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code. (8). I am, therefore, of the opinion that the petition filed by the petitioner was not maintainable particularly, when the trial Magistrate as well as the Sessions Court found no sufficient ground against the additional accused named by the accused in the application filed under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code. (8). The learned counsel has placed reliance on the observations made by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in Mohan Wahi vs. State (1). I have carefully read the judgment given by the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court. In the case before the learned Single Judge one of the accused namely Rajinder Singh, moved the application for issuing process against the petitioner Mohan Wahi. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that an accused has no right to demand or ask for the trial for someone as alongwith him even though he is accompliced and the learned Additional Sessions Judge committed a grave error in summoning the petitioner at the instance of Rajinder Singh, accused. The judgment reported in Narayandas Kedarnath Daga vs. State of Maharashtra (2) and Lakshmandas Chaganlal vs. State (3) cited before the learned Single Judge. In Narayandas Kedarnath Daga vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) the Bombay High Court had observed that: ``..... The Criminal P.C. gives an accused person certain rights of defence but there is no provision in the Criminal P.C. which given the accused a right to demand that someone else even if an accomplice be tried along with him. It is impossible to accept the contention that the accused is entitled to insist that those persons must be tried along with himself. (9). The view taken by the Bombay High Court was considered in Lakshmandas Chaganlal Bhatias case (supra) and it was observed that:- ``.......The purpose of this was obviously to prevent his being examined as a witness at the trial. (10). The learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court after taking into consideration the views of the Bombay High Court in Narayandas Kedarnath Dagas and Laxmandas Chaganlal Bhatias case observed :- ``I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed in both these judgments that an accused person has no right to demand or insist upon another accomplice of his being tried jointly with him. However, I am not persuaded to hold that he cannot even make a request to the Court or bring to the notice of the Court that any person other than him is also involved in the commission of offence and as such he should be summoned to stand trial along with him. In my opinion, power under Section 319 can be exercised by the Court suo motu or on the application of someone including the accused already before him provided, of course, it is satisfied that any person other than the accused has committed any offence for which he can be tried together with the accused. The exercise of the power is, however, discretionary with the Court and there can be no two opinions that the discretion must be exercised judicially having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. In an appropriate case where the Court finds that the purpose of such an application is to prevent an accomplice from appearing as a witness in Court and defeat his prosecution, the court may well decline it. It may even order separate trial of such a person if the circumstance so warrant after examining him as a prosecution witness. (11). Above observation clearly shows that the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court accepted in principle the view expressed by the Bombay High Court in two cases namely Narayandas Kedarnath Dagas case and Lakshmandas Chaganlal Bhatias case (supra). (12). I have carefully considered the view expressed by the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court and views expressed by the learned Judge of the Bombay High Court. It is true that whenever judicial discretion has been conferred on the Court, the Court is required to exercise its judicial discretion in accordance with well established principles with a view to impart justice to the concerned parties. It is also true that for the purpose of doing justice in the case before it a Court may ask any person including any party or a witness to give information to it regarding any matter about which the information was sought by the Court (vide Section 165 of the Evidence Act). It is also true that for the purpose of doing justice in the case before it a Court may ask any person including any party or a witness to give information to it regarding any matter about which the information was sought by the Court (vide Section 165 of the Evidence Act). It is in this back-ground that sometimes it is observed that every person may draw the attention of the Court in the interest of justice to a matter deserving such attention and the Court may act on the information of any person including the accused with a view to do justice to the parties in the case. But a distinction has to be made between the judicial orders which by necessary implication confer a right on the party whose prayer is rejected and the judicial orders which do not create any right in favour of those whose request for taking such action is rejected by the Court. Assuming that every citizen has a right to draw the attention of the Court to a certain matter so that the Court may do justice in the case, such right does not include the right to challenge the order of the Court by way of revision or appeal or a misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. unless the order of the Court by necessary implication adversely affects the right of the person making request. (13). In view of this it cannot be said that every judicial order in every case creates right in favour of the person whose application is rejected by the Court. Take for instance, the case of the person who sends a letter to the Magistrate stating therein that a certain offence has been committed and cognizance be taken under Section 190(1) (C) of the Cr.P.C. or gives such an information orally, telephonically or by telex. It is true that on such an information the Magistrate may take cognizance u/S. 190 (1)(C) of Cr.P.C. (see Anowar Hussain vs. Ajay Kumar (1) but the Magistrate to whom the information is sent is not bound to take cognizance u/s. 190 (1)(C). It is true that on such an information the Magistrate may take cognizance u/S. 190 (1)(C) of Cr.P.C. (see Anowar Hussain vs. Ajay Kumar (1) but the Magistrate to whom the information is sent is not bound to take cognizance u/s. 190 (1)(C). If he ignores the information communicated to him and does not take cognizance u/Sec. 190(1)(C) of Cr.P.C., the refusal to take cognizance in the above mentioned case would not create any right in favour of the informant to file a revision petition before the High Court or before the Court of Sessions with the prayer that the Magistrate may be directed to take cognizance of the offence on the information given by him nor any right would be available to the person giving information of the offence to the Magistrate to approach this Court u/Sec. 482 of Cr. P.C. with a prayer that the Magistrate should be directed to take cognizance u/Sec. 190(1)(C) on his written, oral or telephonic information. The reason is that the power to take cognizance u/Sec. 190(1)(c) of Cr.P.C. is the power of the court and not of any other person, the Court may exercise this power if it deems fit, assuming the responsibility for exercise of such power. In other words, the Magistrate may take cognizance u/Sec. 190(1) (C) if he is prepared to take responsibility for taking cognizance and for issuing process against accused. If for any reason, the Magistrate does not deem it appropriate to assume the responsibility for taking cognizance u/s. 190(1)(C) and issuing process u/s. 204 against any person, no Court can direct the Magistrate u/S. 190 (1) (C) to take responsibility and issue process against any person. If the person who gives information, is in fact interested in prosecuting the offender he should either file the first information report at the police station so that after investigation cognizance may be taken u/S. 190 (1)(B) Cr. P.C. or he should file an appropriate complaint before the Magistrate u/Sec. 190(1)(A) of the Cr. P.C. so that after recording the statements of complainant and his witnesses the question of issuing process against the accused may be judicially decided. P.C. or he should file an appropriate complaint before the Magistrate u/Sec. 190(1)(A) of the Cr. P.C. so that after recording the statements of complainant and his witnesses the question of issuing process against the accused may be judicially decided. Those persons who are not prepared to assume the responsibility for the action which they propose to be taken or those who cannot be made accountable for the action which they propose to be taken against any person, because of the privileged position in which they are placed, ordinarily do not have right to insist that the Court should act in the way as suggested by them. The general rule, that every right must be accompanied by accountability of the person insisting on exercise of that right, must be kept in view, while deciding the question whether any person has or has not the right to challenge the order of the Court. An accused who moves an application u/s. 319 of Cr. P.C., does not have any accountability for the prosecution of any person who may be proceeded against u/s. 204 or 319 of Cr. P.C. by the Court and therefore, he does not have any right to approach the higher Courts, if on his request the Court does not issue process u/s 319 against the co-accused. (14). For the reasons mentioned above, the S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 358/99 as well as the present petition S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 487/99 are misconceived and amount to abuse of the Rajasthan High Court. Consequently, this petition has no force and is hereby rejected.