JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. petition is directed against the order dated 15-7-1998 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh, whereby he impleaded the petitioner as accused in the case. 2. Mr. Garg contends that the Magistrate had already taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 332, 353, 336, 147, 148 and 149 Indian Penal Code vide order dated 8-10-1997 and therefore, he could not take cognizance second time for the same offences. His contention is that if the Magistrate would be satisfied after the evidence is recorded that the petitioner had also participated in the occurrence, then he may exercise his powers under Section 319, Criminal Procedure Code to implead him as an accused. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor has not been able to support the order of the Magistrate. 4. It is obvious that the cognizance of the offences had already been taken on 8-10-1997. If the Magistrate was of the view that the petitioner had also taken part in the occurrence, the only course open for him is to summon him (petitioner) as an accused under Section 319, Criminal Procedure Code after recording the prosecution evidence. Admittedly, no evidence had been recorded before 15-7-1998 and therefore the impugned order cannot be treated to have been passed under Section 319, Criminal Procedure Code The order is not sustainable in law. 5. Consequently, the petition succeeds. The order dated 15-7-1998 is hereby set aside. This order will not prevent the Magistrate to pass appropriate order under Section 319, Criminal Procedure Code after the evidence is recorded.Petition allowed. *******