JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed against the order dated 8-4-2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Camp Bhinmal, in Sessions Case No. 14/2003, by which the learned court below dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 319, Cr.RC. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner, who is alleged to have suffered injuries in the incident which took place on 26-6-2001, moved an application under Section 319 Cr.PC. for taking cognizance of the offences under Section 148, 323, 325/149 and 307/149, IPC against Chhotu Khan and Hindu Singh and impleading them as accused alongwith co-accused facing the trial on the ground that there was sufficient evidence against them also. The learned court below, vide impugned order dated 8-4-2003, rejected the said application. Hence this revision. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and carefully gone through the order impugned. 4. The State has not challenged the order impugned, which was passed by the trial Court on the application moved by the petitioner. For invoking the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the condition precedent is that it should appear to the Court from the evidence collected during trial or in the inquiry that some other person, who is not arraigned as an accused in that case, has committed an offence for which that person could be tried together with the accused already arraigned. The power conferred on the Court is discretionary as could be gathered from the words "the Court may proceed against such person" and the discretionary power so conferred on the Court should be exercised only to achieve the criminal justice. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Michael Machado & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., 2000 Cr.L.R. (SC) 265 , held that the power conferred on the Court under Section 319 Cr.PC. is only a discretion as could be discerned from the words "the Court may proceed against such person." It further held that unless the Court is hopeful that there is reasonable prospect of the case as against the newly brought accused ending in conviction for the offence concerned, the Court should refrain from adopting such a course of action. is only a discretion as could be discerned from the words "the Court may proceed against such person." It further held that unless the Court is hopeful that there is reasonable prospect of the case as against the newly brought accused ending in conviction for the offence concerned, the Court should refrain from adopting such a course of action. Thus, it is clear that before Court exercises the power conferred under Section 319 Cr.PC., the Court is required to satisfy that there is a reasonable prospect of the case as against the person sought to be arraigned as accused ending in conviction for the offence concerned. 6. In Harihar Chakravarty v. the State of West Bengal, AIR 1954 SC 266 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is not to be lightly exercised when it is invoked by a private complainant. 7. In Ramu alias Ram Kumar & ors. v. Jagannath, AIR 1994 SC 26 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court should not be lightly exercised particularly when it was invoked by a private complainant.Consequently, I find no merit in this petition and it is hereby dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******