Judgment A.S.Garg, J. 1. In a case under Section 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Jagraon, a charge had been framed by the learned trial Magistrate on 14.3.1990 against the petitioner. 2. An application was moved by the prosecutor for summoning the petitioner Shri Kuldip Singh, S.I., as an accused, under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate without recording any evidence vide order dated 14.3.1990 ordered that Kuldip Singh, Sub Inspector, be summoned by warrant of arrest. Shri Kuldip Singh has come for quashment of the said order before this Court. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has arugued that Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not permit summoning of an accused without the Magistrate having recorded any evidence after the charge was framed. In support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1998(4) RCR (Criminal) 552 : [1999(3) All India Criminal Law Reporter 156 (SC)], Hukamaram and others v. State of Rajasthan, 1982 Crl. L.J. 2341, Sohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 1999(1) RCR (Criminal) 518: [1999(4) All India Criminal Law Reporter 352(Raj.)], and Dharam Pal v. Hardial Singh, 1999(2) RCR (Criminal) 165: [1999(2) All India Criminal Law Reporter 150 (Pb. & Hry.)]. 4. However, the facts and circumstances differ in each and every case. In the case in hand there was a dispute regarding the supply of some bales of gunny bags. A witness, namely, Balbir Singh, during investigation, had made a statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that an entry of 105 bales of gunny bags made by Kuldip Singh, Sub Inspector (petitioner herein) and he was supposed to be responsible. The Sub Inspector also moved an application for bail before the High Court which was dismissed. So it was in these peculiar circumstances, the Magistrate has no alternative except to summon the Sub Inspector as an accused when it was brought to its notice that his name had appeared during investigation as an offender and that even his bail application was rejected by the High Court. It was more of a correction through an amendment to charge-sheet that the name of Kuldip, Sub Inspector, was to be included. Thus, it was not an application under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the real sense. It was more of a correction through an amendment to charge-sheet that the name of Kuldip, Sub Inspector, was to be included. Thus, it was not an application under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the real sense. 5. There appears to be no reason to spare the petitioner for trial. The petition for quashing the order of stands dismissed.