JUDGMENT Initially, the Police had filed a charge-sheet against the applicant also. The Session Court vide its order dt. 24.3.2000 had dis-charged the applicant. Lateron, statement of prosecutrix was recorded on oath on 24.7.2000 wherein she named the applicant. Lateron, an application U/S 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the prosecution and vide impugned order dt. 9.10.2000, the Session Court recalled the applicant. Obviously, the case is squarely covered by Sohan Lal and others v. State of Rajasthan : AIR 1990 SC 2158 and the applicant could not have been proceeded against under the provisions of section 319 of the said Code. He was held an accused in the Session trial. He was dis-charged without framing charges. Such order has become final. In this respect, the observations of the Apex Court in the above quoted" case at page 2166-2167 are worth quoting: "The provisions of section 319 had to be read in consonance with the provisions of S. 398 of the Code. Once a person is found to have been the accused in the case be goes out of the reach of S. 319. Whether he can be dealt with under any other provisions of the Code is a different question. In the case of the accused who has been discharged under the relevant provisions of the Code, the nature of finality to such order and the resultant protection of the persons discharged subject to revision under S. 398 of the Code may not be lost sight of. This should be so because the complainant's desire for venegance has to be tempered with though it may be, as Sir James Stephen says: "The Criminal Law stands to the passing of revange in much the same relation as marriage to the sexual apetite." Thus, the revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the applicant is dis-charged.