Honble SHARMA, J.–Nagging question that cropped up for consideration in the instant petition is whether provisions of limitation contained in Section 468 Cr.P.C. are applicable to the persons proceeded against by the trial court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the basis of evidence recorded during trial. (2). Brief resume of the facts is that informant Hari Shanker instituted FIR with the P.S. Kotwali Bharatpur on May 6, 1992 against the petitioners and Purshottam. After investigation chargesheet was laid only against Purshottam under Section 342 IPC and the Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that the petitioners had not committed any offence. Learned trial court took cognizance under Section 342 IPC, and proceeded to try the case against accused Purshottam. During trial Naren- dra Kumar (PW.1), Anurag Sharma (PW.2), Hari Shanker Sharma (PW.3) and Son Devi (PW.4) were examined respectively on March 15, 1995, July 26, 1996, Feb. 28, 1997 and July 11, 1997. (3). On July 11, 1997 informant moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for proceeding against the petitioners on the basis of evidence adduced during trial. Learned trial court allowed the application vide its order dated August 11, 1997 took cognizance u/Secs. 342 and 323 IPC and summoned the petitioners. The order of the learned trial court was called in question before the revisional court but the rev- ision was dismissed vide order dated December 17, 1997. Now both the orders of the learned courts below have been assailed in the instant miscellaneous petition. (4). I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. (5). I am unable to pursuade myself to agree with the submissions of Mr. D.G. Chaturvedi learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that provisions contained in Section 468 Cr.P.C. are applicable in the instant case. I am of the cosidered opi- nion that provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C. will not be attracted in view of Section 319(4)(b) Cr.P.C. and added accused will also be deemed to be person against whom cognizance had been taken at the initial stage when the court had summoned the accused for trial. If in course of trial, in which trial court has already taken cognizance of offence within period of limitation and some other persons are summoned to stand trial as accused no bar of limitation shall arise by such inclusion. (6). Cases on which reliance was placed by Mr. If in course of trial, in which trial court has already taken cognizance of offence within period of limitation and some other persons are summoned to stand trial as accused no bar of limitation shall arise by such inclusion. (6). Cases on which reliance was placed by Mr. D.G. Chaturvedi learned counsel are distinguishable. In Ram Dayal Sharma vs. State (1) provision of Section 319(4)(b) Cr.P.C. was not brought to the notice of this court. In Bhawani Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (2) words ``it appears from the evidence enumerated in Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. were not discussed. It was held by this court that, ``the police has submitted a negative report against Ram Avtar and the complainant could have objected to such report at the first opportunity available to him. Moreover as stated by the learned Magistrate the statement of Bhawani Singh did not disclose sufficient evidence justifying the summoning of Ram Avtar as co-accused in the case. (7). The complainant under Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. only make a request to the trial court to summon persons appearing to be guilty of offence after the evidence is recorded. Before evidence no opportunity is available to the complainant. It is well settled that mere submissions of final report by police would not fetter the discretion of court to summon a person as additional accused when a specified role was assigned to him by the eye witnesses. (8). The trial court while passing an order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not called upon to evaluate or appraise the evidence with a view to assess whether the evidence is sufficient for ultimate conviction of the accused but the court should see that an innocent person is not harassed and has to strike a balance. (9). While adjudicating upon the instant petition, I cannot meticulously examine the material on record to see if there is any valid ground for impleading the petitioners. To adjudge, whether the evidence is sufficient or not, is the function of the trial court and the petitioners if so choose, can move application in the light of observations of Apex Court in K.M. Mathews case (3) before the learned trial court. (10). In view of what I have observed above, the miscellaneous petition stands dismissed.