ORDER: The revision petitioner has preferred the present revision petition aggrieved against the order passed in Crl.R.C.No.15 of 2000 dated 23.11.2000 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District. 2. The case in brief is as follows The respondent Police investigated the complaint and filed charge sheet against six persons only for the offence under Secs.147, 448, 324 and 506(2), I.P.C. The revision petitioner as well as 5 other persons have not been implicated as accused in the charge sheet. The Judicial Magistrate, Srivilliputhur has taken cognizance and P.Ws.1 and 2 have been examined on 18.11.1996 and P.Ws.3 and 4 have been examined on 9.12.1996 and P.W.5 has been examined on 3.2.1997. Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor filed a memo under Sec.319, Crl.P.C. to implicate the revision petitioner and 5 others as accused in the case. The revision petitioner filed Crl.R.C.No.14 of 1998 before this Court and this Court directed the learned Magistrate to give an opportunity to the proposed accused and dispose of the case in accordance with law. Based upon that the learned Magistrate after giving an opportunity, dismissed the application filed by the respondent in Crl.M.P.No.1386 of 1997, dated 4.6.1999. Aggrieved against the said order, the respondent preferred revision before the Sessions Court, Srivilliputhur and the revision was allowed and the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1386 of 1997 was set aside. Aggrieved against this only, the present revision has been filed by one of the proposed accused in the case. 3. The learned Government Advocate contended that after examination of the witnesses only, the Public Prosecutor filed a petition and in view of the material only, the learned Sessions Judge has allowed the application to implicate the revision petitioner as well as five other persons, as accused in the case and as there is no illegality or infirmity, it cannot be interfered with. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The point that arise for consideration is whether the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Srivilliputhur is proper and correct? 6.Point: It is admitted that the respondent filed a charge-sheet against 6 persons for the alleged offence under Secs.147, 148, 448, 324 and 506(2), I.P.C. The revision petitioner and 5 other persons have not been implicated in the charge sheet. PWs.1 and 2 have been examined on 18.11.1996, P.Ws.3 and 4 have been examined on 9.12.1996 and P.W.5 has been examined on 3.2.1997. PWs.1 and 2 have been examined on 18.11.1996, P.Ws.3 and 4 have been examined on 9.12.1996 and P.W.5 has been examined on 3.2.1997. For this only, the Public Prosecutor filed a memo to implead the revision petitioner as well as five other persons as accused by invoking Sec.319, Crl.P.C. It is necessary to state that the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the Public Prosecutor and aggrieved against this, the State preferred Crl.R.C.No.15 of 2000 on the file of the Sessions Court and the revision was allowed. 7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the learned District Judge has not appreciated the available piece of evidence since P. W.3 has not stated anything about the revision petitioner during the course of the investigation. However, only before the Court, he had implicated the revision petitioner. Similarly, P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 also have given contradictory versions. In fact P.W.1 admitted in the cross-examination that he was involved nearly in 25 cases. Even on that day counter case has been registered in Cr.No.18/94 as against the prosecution parties themselves. The prosecution has not filed any application immediately in November, 1996 after the evidence of P.W.1 was completed. Only at a later stage the application has been filed. The learned Sessions Judge has also failed to consider the decision cited on behalf of the revision petitioner. The Judgment of the Apex Court is very clear in this regard. Based upon that judgment, it is not a fit case to implicate the revision petitioner as a accused and commencing a de novo trial. The order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Srivilliputhur is a well merited one and it has to be confirmed. 8. It is necessary to state that the learned Magistrate had dismissed Crl.M.P.No.1386 of 1997 filed by the prosecution to implead the revision petitioner as well as five other persons. Aggrieved against this order only, the State has preferred a revision before the Sessions Court and the revision was allowed. It has come out that there is a counter case in Cr.No.18/94 wherein the prosecution witnesses are also accused. There is a counter case against 13 persons. After proper investigation only charge sheet was laid by the respondent only against six persons and left out the other remaining persons. It has come out that there is a counter case in Cr.No.18/94 wherein the prosecution witnesses are also accused. There is a counter case against 13 persons. After proper investigation only charge sheet was laid by the respondent only against six persons and left out the other remaining persons. When P.W.1 himself was an accused in the counter case, then he should have known that the other 6 persons have not been implicated as accused in the charge sheet. Under the circumstances, if really P.W.1 was aggrieved, he could have filed a private complaint to implicate the revision petitioner as well as 5 other persons long back. Furthermore, when in November, 1996 P.W.1 was examined, the application under Sec.319, Crl.P.C. was filed only on 17.9.1997. But, the learned Public Prosecutor mainly stated that the order passed by the Court below is proper and correct. A careful reading of the entire materials would clearly indicate that Sec.319, Crl.P.C. had not been properly invoked in the case and the order passed by the learned Magistrate is proper and correct. The learned Sessions Judge unfortunately looked into the statement recorded from witnesses under Sec.161, Crl.P.C. and allowed the revision petition. Simply because some of the witnesses stated only before the Court against the revision petitioner as well as five other persons, Sec.319, Crl.P.C. cannot be invoked. When they have failed to refer about he revision petitioner and 5 others during investigation, the only course open to them is to file a private complaint against the other persons and not to invoke Sec.319, Crl.P.C. The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is mainly based upon the evidence given before the Court ignoring the fact that most of the witnesses have not stated anything during investigation implicating the revision petitioner as well as five other persons. 9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner also relied on Michel Machado and another v. C.B.I., 2000 M.L.J. (Crl.)481, wherein it is stated as follows: The discretionary power so conferred should be exercised only to achieve criminal justice. It is not that the Court should turn against another person whenever it comes across evidence connecting that another person also with the offences. It is not that the Court should turn against another person whenever it comes across evidence connecting that another person also with the offences. A judicial exercise is called for keeping a conspectus of the case including the stage at which the trial has proceeded already and the quantum of evidence collected till then and also the amount of time which the Court had spent for collecting such evidence. It must be remembered that there is no compelling duty on the Court to proceed against other persons. The Court, while deciding whether to invoke the power under Sec.319 of the Code must address itself about the other constraints imposed by the first limb of Sub-sec.(4) that proceedings in respect of the newly added persons shall be commenced afresh and the witnesses re-examined. The whole proceedings must be recommended from the beginning of the trial, summoning the witnesses once again examining them and cross examining them in order to reach the stage where it had reached earlier. If the witnesses already examined were quite large in number, the Court must seriously consider whether the objects sought to be achieved by such exercise is worth wasting the whole labour already undertaken. Unless the Court is hopeful that there is a reasonable prospect of the case as against the newly brought accused ending in conviction of the offence concerned, it should refrain from adopting such a course of action. 10. It is therefore clear from the aforesaid decision that the Court must keep in mind the stage at which trial has reached already, quantum of evidence collected till then, and amount of time spent by Court for collecting such evidence. Taking into consideration of the entire material, I am of the view that the learned Sessions Judge has committed an error in allowing the petition and in the light of the contradictory evidence given by the witnesses, one before the Court and another before the investigation, it would end in acquittal and as such it is not necessary to waste the time of the Court in implicating the revision petitioner and other persons for a de novo trial and as such the order passed by the Sessions Court is liable to be set aside. 11. 11. For the reasons stated above, the revision is allowed and the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Crl.R.C.No.15 of 2000, dated 23.11.2000 is set aside and the order passed by the learned Magistrate is confirmed. Consequently, the connected Crl.M.P. is closed.