Judgment 1. In this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order, dated 22.3.1999 passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger by reason of which on the prayer made by the prosecution non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner for his appearance to face the trial. 2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner along with other co-accused was named in the First Information Report for the offence under Sections 341, 342, 326, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. This First Information Report gave rise to Muffassil PS Case No. 338 of 1996, dated 19.11.1996. 3. The police after investigation charge-sheeted other co-accused but, submitted final form against the petitioner finding the case false against him. The Magistrate took cognizance on 21.4.1998 and issued process against other co-accused but, discharged the petitioner from the instant case. The case was committed to the Court of Session on 24.11.1998. The informant, through the APP, filed a petition before the Court for issuance of summons against the petitioner. The said prayer was rejected vide order, dated 29.1.1999. Subsequently, charge was framed and during the trial PW 1, Md. Yasim was examined, who had stated about the complicity of the petitioner. At this stage, a petition was filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of the Code praying therein, to summon the petitioner to appear and face the trial. By the impugned order, the prayer was allowed. 4. Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Trial Court has illegally exercised his power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before being satisfied with the prima facie evidence against the petitioner. According to him, when only one witness has been examined and that too made contradictory statement, the learned trial Court was not right in issuing summons to the petitioner. He has placed reliance on the decisions in the case of Satish Mehra V/s. Delhi Administration and another, (1996) 9 SCC 766 , and in the case of Ashok Chaturvedi and others V/s. Shitul H. Chanchani and another, (1998) 7 SCC 698 . He has placed reliance on the decisions in the case of Satish Mehra V/s. Delhi Administration and another, (1996) 9 SCC 766 , and in the case of Ashok Chaturvedi and others V/s. Shitul H. Chanchani and another, (1998) 7 SCC 698 . Learned Counsel submits that in view of these two decisions, the trial Court before issuing summons to an additional accused must be satisfied from the records of the case that a prima facie case has been made out against him. Elaborating the argument, he contends that on the basis of evidence of only PW 1, the Magistrate should not have passed the order but, should have waited till all the witnesses were examined. 5. I am not inclined to accept the argument of Mr. Mahto, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Section 319 of the Code, inter alia, contemplates that "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. 6. The decisions relied upon by Mr. Mahto are not applicable in this case inasmuch as those decisions relate to the stage of framing of charge and not at the stage of exercising power under Section 319 of the Code. 7. In the instant case, I am not concerned with other sub-sections of Section 319 of the Code. It is a self-contained Section independent of Sections 190 and 191 of the Code. Section 190 of the Code refers to initiation of proceedings but, Section 319 deals with a matter arising during the course of a proceeding already initiated. When an inquiry or trial is already commenced, the Court may independently of Section 190 proceed against a person, who fills the character described in Section 319 of the Code. 8. It should be borne in mind that, before framing of charge when the informant filed an application for issuing summons against the petitioner and the same was rejected by the trial Court, which means that the Court was of the opinion that the stage of Section 319 of the Code had not arrived till that date. However, after framing of charge, when the trial proceeded, Md. However, after framing of charge, when the trial proceeded, Md. Yasin was examined as PW 1 on 23.2.1999. He has categorically stated in his chief that the petitioner was having a rifle and getting the pond fished out and also there was exchange of hot words between him and the deceased. The petitioner fired from his rifle which caused injuries on the chest of the deceased Mikile. It is true that a suggestion was given to him by the defence that the petitioner Mausam was not available at the time of occurrence rather, soon after armed obstruction by the prosecution side, he left the place of occurrence to inform the police. However, this suggestion was denied by PW 1. 9. The trial Court, in my view, correctly observed that at this stage forensic analysis of the evidence of PW 1 was not required but, the question remains as to whether the trial Court ought to have waited for further evidence before summoning the petitioner to face the trial. This question has been answered by their lordships in the case of Ranjit Singh V/s. State of Punjab, reported in, 1998 SC 3148 : 1999 (1) PCCR 21 (SC), where in it has been held that it is not necessary for the Court to wait until the entire evidence is collected for exercising such power. 10. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that, the learned trial Court has not exceeded his jurisdiction by invoking its power under Section 319 of the Code by issuing non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner for his appearance to face the trial for the offence. 11. In the result, this application is dismissed having no merit.