JUDGMENT 1. - Heard Mr. Gupta for the complainant petitioner as well as the learned P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioner, who is a practising Lawyer in District Karauli has come up before this Court by way of this revision petition against the order dated 18th March, 1999 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge Jr. Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Karauli in Criminal Case No. (471 /1985)/207/93 by which the learned Trial Court dismissed the application moved by the petitioner under Section 319, Cr.P.C. 3. The facts which are relevant for deciding the case briefly stated are that the complainant petitioner lodged a First Information Report with Police Station, Karauli, vide F.I.R. No. 318/85 on 29th September, 1985 on the allegation that complainant's wife was subjected to physical assault resulting in grievous injuries on her person at the instance of the accused Chandra Prakash and Dharmendra Singh (respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively in the revision petition). She was hospitalised in District Civil Hospital at Karauli where she was treated by the doctors. Before the Trial Court, alongwith the charge-sheet MLC of the injured wife of the petitioner was filed by the prosecution. The case of the complainant was that in view of the injuries sustained by his wife, there was a fracture on the frontal bone of the skull and apart from that there was sufficient evidence for implicating the accused non-petitioners for the offence under Sections 307/ 326, 452, 147 and 148, IPC as many as five accused had participated in the occurrence. The accused persons were also named in the First Information Report. The Trial Court instead of taking cognizance against the accused for the aforesaid offences, took cognizance for the offence under Sections 337 and 338, IPC.I have heard the learned Counsel for the complainant petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 4. Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates as under :"319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence (1) Where, 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, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. (2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. (3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed. (4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under Sub-section (1):- (a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and the witnesses re-heard; (b) subject to the provisions of Clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person has been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced." 5. During the course of hearing, learned Counsel for petitioner has contended that there was overwhelming evidence on the record for purpose of summoning the other accused apart from respondent Nos. 2 and 3 since they were not only named in the First Information Report but also there is sufficient corroborative evidence to establish the complicity of the accused in the commission of the aforesaid offence. 6. Be that as it may, the question which is relevant to be determined at this stage is whether the learned Trial Court was justified in declining the petitioner's request for summoning co-accused in accordance with the provisions of Section 319, Cr.P.C. Apart from the requests made by the petitioner for altering the charge as per the provisions of Sections 216, Cr.P.C. Section 216, Cr.P.C. specifically empowers the Court to alter or add any charge at any time before pronouncement of the judgment. 7. As the result of the above discussion I am of the view that the Trial Court has committed a serious infirmity in denying opportunity to the complainant-petitioner to argue the case by assisting the learned P.P. appearing on behalf of the State Government. As regards his application moved under Section 319, Cr.P.C. the impugned order dated 18th March, 1999 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. In the result, the revision petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 18th March, 1999 is quashed and set aside and the Trial Court is directed to permit the complainant-petitioner to conduct proceedings alongwith the learned Public Prosecutor. 8. In the result, the revision petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 18th March, 1999 is quashed and set aside and the Trial Court is directed to permit the complainant-petitioner to conduct proceedings alongwith the learned Public Prosecutor. It is, however, directed that the application moved by the complainant-petitioner under Section 319, Cr.P.C. be decided afresh in accordance with law alongwith the application moved under Section 216, Cr.P.C.Revision Petition allowed. *******