JUDGMENT 1. - By way of instant revision petition the petitioners Bhoja Ram, Hama Ram, Swaroopa Ram and Bhanwara Ram have challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track), No. 2, Bikaner dated 15.9.2003, summoning the petitioners under Section 319 Cr.PC. taking cognizance against them for offence under Section 148, 307 or 307/149, 325 or 325/149, 323, 324 or 324/149, 342 I.P.C. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 6.12.1998 Bagh Singh lodged a First Information Report stating inter alia that he was being assaulted by eight accused persons namely Hema Ram, Bhoja Ram, Jeevan Ram, Swaroopa Ram, Karna Ram; Bhanwara Ram, Bhagirath and Jetha Ram. It is alleged that Hema Ram inflicted injury on the head of Bagh Singh by Barchies. Jetha Ram inflicted a Kulhary blow on the back and rest of the accused persons inflicted injuries by lathies. 3. After usual investigation the Police found no case against Hema Ram, Bhoja Ram, Jeevan Ram and Swaroopa Ram. The charge sheet was filed against the four accused persons namely Karna Ram; Bhagirath, Jetha Ram and Mangilal for offence under Section 307 and allied offences. On being committed, they were put to trial before the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Bikaner. 4. During trial an application was filed on behalf of the complainant under Section 319 Cr.PC. for summoning of the accused petitioners. The learned Judge by the impugned order has allowed the application and has taken cognizance against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. They have been summoned by issuing warrant of arrest. It is of course true that a delay in filing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. or the fact that the trial is at the conclusion cannot be a sole ground to refuse to proceed against them, but at the same time mere suspicion of his or her involvement in the offence is not enough to proceed against them. The discretionary power conferred on a trial court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 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 other persons also with the offence. It is held by the Apex Court in Michael Machado & Anr. The discretionary power conferred on a trial court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 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 other persons also with the offence. It is held by the Apex Court in Michael Machado & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., reported in 2000 (3) SCC 262 that 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. The court further reminded that there is no compelling duty of the court to proceed against the other persons. It was also observed that the trial court while deciding whether to invoke the powers of Section 319 of the Code, must address itself about the other constraints imposed by the first limb of Sub-section (4) of Section 319, namely, that the proceedings in respect of newly-added persons shall be commenced afresh and witnesses re-examined. The court further observed as follows: "The whole proceedings must be recommenced from the beginning of the trial, summon the witnesses once again and examine them and cross-examine them in order to reach the stage where it had reached earlier. If the witnesses already examined are quite large in number, the court must seriously consider whether the objects sought to be achieved by such exercise are worth wasting the whole labour already under taken. Unless the court is hopeful that there is a reasonable prospect of the case as against the newly-brought accused ending in being convicted for offence concerned, the court should refrain from adopting such course of action." 5. In the instant case, the incident alleged to have taken place as back as in the year 1998. The trial is pending for almost about 5 years. The complainant has implicated as many as 8 accused persons. Looking to the nature and number of injuries, it does not appear probable that eight accused persons would have mounted assault on the complainant. The police after investigation could find a case against only four accused persons. They have been tried for the offence under Section 307 and allied offences. The complainant has implicated as many as 8 accused persons. Looking to the nature and number of injuries, it does not appear probable that eight accused persons would have mounted assault on the complainant. The police after investigation could find a case against only four accused persons. They have been tried for the offence under Section 307 and allied offences. Adding four more accused persons may satisfy the complainant but is no way going to achieve the criminal justice. The trial is pending for last 5 years should be allowed to concluded. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the revision petition is allowed and the order of the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), No. 2, Bikaner dated 15.9.2003 s quashed and set aside.Revision Allowed - Order of Cognizance Set Aside. *******