Judgment O.P. Bishnoi, J.-This revision petition has been filed by the complainant Ram Chandra against an order dated 4-10-2002, whereby, an application under Section 319 of the Cr. P. C. for impleading one Mangi Lal as an accused, was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Tract), Nagaur. .2. Thefacts of the matter, in brief , are that according to the prosecution story, PW-10 Ram Chandra Jat resident of Village ‘Bodwa’ on 16-6-2001 at 1.00 p.m. lodged a written FIR Ex. P/13 before the Superintendent of Police, Nagaur. According to the F.I.R., the said Ramchandra along with his uncle Mangla Ram (deceased) was going on a two wheeler from their village ‘Bodwa’ to ‘Dhadhalia’. Khurd. When they proceeded some 10 Kms. ahead from Kuchera, a Motor Cycle came from behind and the principal accused Ram Vilas alias Ram Kailash fired from a country made pistol and Mangla Ram received a solitary injury on account of that. According to the report, Mangi Lal son of Sagram r/o Village Kuchera was driving the motor cycle and Ram Kailash with a pistol, was the pillion rider. According to the report, he as well as Mangla Ram recognised both of them. Soon a jeep came, which was stopped by Ram Chandra and injured Mangla Ram was transferred to the jeep and was taken to the hospital at Kuchera. The doctor provided the first-aid and referred the patient to Nagaur. Thereafter, the injured was taken to the hospital at Nagaur, from where, he was referred to Jodhpur. The report in original was forwarded to the police station. Kuchera and the said Ram Chandra along with a Constable reached the police station, Kuchera at 3.35 p.m. and produced the report, on which, a case under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act was registered. The dying declaration of Mangla Ram (Ex. P/20) was recorded on 16-6-200 1 at 9.37 p.m. in the Emergency Ward of Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, C .B .1. Cases, Jodhpur. Mangla Ram stated that at about 10.00 a.m. while he was going with Ram Chandra on a motor cycle, Ram Vilas (alias Ram Kailash) fired at him from a country made pistol and in this way, he was injured. Cases, Jodhpur. Mangla Ram stated that at about 10.00 a.m. while he was going with Ram Chandra on a motor cycle, Ram Vilas (alias Ram Kailash) fired at him from a country made pistol and in this way, he was injured. He specifically stated that the assailant was .riding the motor cycle as a pillion rider and driver of the motor cycle could not be recognised. He further stated that one or two persons were eye-witnesses of the incident who were sitting near the place of occurrence. Mangla Ram could not be saved and died during treatment on 22-6-2001. From the investigation, it came out that instead of Mangi Lal, the driver of the motor cycle was Durga Ram and the assailant Ram Kailash was sitting behind him. According to the prosecution story, Ghewar Ram had an emmity with the deceased on account of’Panchayat Elections’ and there was a conspiracy hatched by Ghewar Ram, Ram Kailash, and Durga Ram, as a result of which, the incident took place. 3. Consequently, a challan under Sections 302 and 120-B of the I.P.C. and Section 3/25-27 of the Arms Act was filed against Ram Kailash Ghewar Ram was challaned for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 read with Section 120-B of the I.P.C. Durga Ram could not be apprehended and challan for the offences under Section 302/34 read with Section 120-B of the I.P.C. was filed against him in his absence under Section 299 of the Cr. P. C. 4. During the trial, an application under Section 319 of the Cr. P. C. was moved on 6-8-2002 by the complainant Ram Chandra with a prayer that cognizance be taken against the accused Mangi Lal against whom no challan was filed by the police. The learned trial Court heard the arguments and dismissed the application on 4-10-2002. Feeling aggrieved, this revision petition has been filed by the said Ram Chandra. 5. I haveheard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and have gone through the record of the learned trial Court. 6. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in this case, the sole eyewitness Ram Chandra lodged the F.I.R. and the name of Mangi Lal finds place as a co-accused. 6. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in this case, the sole eyewitness Ram Chandra lodged the F.I.R. and the name of Mangi Lal finds place as a co-accused. Further, it is argued that from the evidence of PW-10 Ram Chandra, PW-7 Ghewar Ram and PW-8 Hanuman Ram, it is evident that it was Mangilal, who was driving the motor cycle and the application against him under Section 319 of the Cr. P. C. deserves to be allowed. .7. During the course of arguments, the following citations were pressed into service by the learned counsel for the petitioner:- .(1) Smt. Rukhsana Khatoon vs. Bakhawat Hussain, 2002 CrLJ 2969 : ( AIR 2002 SC 2342 ); .(2) Rakeshv. State of Haryana (2001) 6SCC 248 : ( 2001 CrLJ 3511 : AIR 2001 SC 2521 ); .(3) HajariRam vs. State of Rajasthan, 1999 Cri LR 469 (Raj); .(4) Sanjeev vs. State of Rajasthan (2002) 3 WLC 312 (Raj); .(5) State of Rajasthan vs. Mangi Lal (2002) 3 WLN 37 (Raj); .(6) Kishun Singh vs. State of Bihar, 1993 Cri LR 193 : ( 1993 CrLJ 1700 : 1993 AIR SCW 771); .(7) Grow-on Exports (India) Ltd. vs. J.K. Goel (2002) 1 Cri CC 664 (Delhi); .(8) Suresh Chandra vs. State of Rajasthan (2002) 4 Raj LW 2035; .(9) Teju Mal vs. State of Rajasthan, 1988 Cri LR (Raj) 665; and .(10) Dilawar Balu vs. State of Maharashtra (2002) 2 SCC 135 : ( 2002 CrLJ 980 : AIR 2002 SC 564 ). 8. After going through the record of the trial Court and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that there is no merit in this petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. .9. Aspointed out earlier from the investigation, it came out that Mangilal was not even present at the place of occurrence and driver of the motor cycle was Durga Ram and as such, he stands challaned. It is true that the name of Mangilal finds place in the F.I.R. as a driver of the motor cycle and PW-10 Ram Chandra, PW-7 Ghewar Ram and PW-8 Hanuman Ram have tried to implicate him during their depositions in the Court. However, their evidence on this point, is highly suspect and conclusions drawn by the learned trial Court cannot be termed as erroneous. However, their evidence on this point, is highly suspect and conclusions drawn by the learned trial Court cannot be termed as erroneous. It may be made clear that PW-7 Ghewar Ram and PW-8 Hanuman Ram are not the eye-witnesses and hence, they had no personal knowledge as to who was driving the motor cycle when the gun-shot was fired. PW-7 Ghewar Ram has stated that the story was narrated to him by PW-10 Ram Chandra, according to which, Mangi Lal was driving the motor cycle at the relevant time. PW-7 Ghewar Ram has gone to the extent of deposing that the same story (that the driver was Mangi Lal) was narrated to him by the deceased Mangla Ram as well. This part of the statement, is evidently untrue because in his dying declaration, the deceased has specifically stated that only the assailant was recognised and the driver of the motor cycle could not be recognised. In this way, PW-7 Ghewar Ram cannot be termed as a reliable witness in respect of the controversy at hand, PW-8 Hanuman Ram has deposed to the effect that four persons namely Durga Ram, Ghewar Ram, Mangi Lal and Ram Kailash started together on two separate two wheelers. No other witness has stated that all the four started together in the manner suggested by PW-8 Hanuman Ram. During the cross-examination, it has become clear that PW-8 Hanuman Ram cannot be termed as an honest and sincere witness. In order to prove his relationship, he was cross-examined and a suggestion was given to him that Dinesh was a brother of his wife, who was married to the daughter of the deceased Mangla Ram. He pleaded ignorance about the said marriage. In order to prove that Dinesh was, in fact, the brother of his wife, he was put the question to disclose the names of the brothers of his wife. Strangely enough, the witness .refused to answer this question. Needless to say, that no reliance can be placed on the evidence of such a person. PW-7 Ghewar Ram and PW-8 Hanuman Ram both have contradicted and improved upon their earlier statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr. P. C. As pointed out earlier, the incident took place on 16-6-2001 and the statement of PW-8 Hanuman Ram (Ex. D/2) under Section 161 of the Cr. PW-7 Ghewar Ram and PW-8 Hanuman Ram both have contradicted and improved upon their earlier statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr. P. C. As pointed out earlier, the incident took place on 16-6-2001 and the statement of PW-8 Hanuman Ram (Ex. D/2) under Section 161 of the Cr. P. C. was recorded as late as on 5-9-200 1 and this undue delay speaks for itself . 10. As pointed out earlier, the name of Mangi Lal finds place in the FIR and during his deposition, PW- 10 Ram Chandra has stated that he was the driver of the motor cycle in question. However, in the FIR itself , there is a specific mention to the effect that Mangi Lal was clearly recognised on the spot not only by Ram Chandra but by the deceased Mangla Ram as well. The mention, in this respect, in the FIR, is very specific. However, as pointed out earlier, the deceased Mangla Ram, who died on 22-6-2001, in his statement Ex. P/20 recorded on 16-6-2001, has specifically stated that only Ram Vilas alias Ram Kailiash was recognised and the driver of the two wheeler was not recognised. If Ram Chandra was able to recognise Mangi Lal on the spot as alleged in the FIR, it was very natural that he would disclose the name of Mangilal to the deceased even if the latter was not able to recognise Mangi Lal but the deceased Mangla Ram does not say that the driver of the vehicle was recognised even by Ram Chandra, As per the statement of PW-8 Hanuman Ram recorded under Section 161 of the Cr. P. C. it was Durga Ram and not Mangi Lal, who was driving the motor cycle in question, 11. Thecases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments, are of no help to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the case of Rukhsana Khatoon, 2002 CrLJ 2969 : ( AIR 2002 SC 2342 ) (supra), the facts were to the effect that the High Court dismissed the application under Section 319 of the Cr. P. C. on the ground that Section 319 of the Cr. P. C. cannot be invoked by the Court when a person named as an accused in the FIR, is not charge-sheeted. P. C. on the ground that Section 319 of the Cr. P. C. cannot be invoked by the Court when a person named as an accused in the FIR, is not charge-sheeted. The Apex Court found that it was a wrong approach and if there was proper evidence, Section 319 of the Cr. P. C. could be invoked even if no challan had been filed against an accused whose name finds place in the FIR. In the instant case, the application has not been dismissed on account of non-filing of challan against Mangi Lal. 12. In the case of Rakesh ( 2001 CrLJ 3511 : AIR 2001 SC 2521 ) (supra), it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme court that if a witness implicates an additional accused, it is not necessary that prior to his cross-examination by the said accused, Section 319 of the Cr. P. C. cannot be invoked. 10.13. In the case of Hajari Ram (1999 Cri LR 469) (Raj) (supra), the name of the accused concerned did not find place in the FIR and the application under Section 319 of the Cr. P. C. was dismissed mainly on the ground that the omission of name in the FIR was fatal. This court found that the names of all the five accused-persons including Smt. chuuna were mentioned at one place or the other in the FIR and the mention in the FIR to the effect that all the five accused-persons administered poison to Radha would mean that all the five accused-persons Including Smt. Chunna were involved in the crime. Hence, it was found that dismissal of the application against Smt. Chunna under Section 319 of the Cr. P. C. was not justified. 114. In the case of Sanjeev (2002 (3) WLC 312) (supra), this Court found that the evidence recorded in the Court against the five additional accused was flawless and without any infirmity and consequently, the impugned order taking cognizance could not be faulted. In the instant case, it is evident that the evidence so far as the accused Mangilal is concerned, is far from satisfactory. 115. In the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Mangilal (2002 (3) WLN 37) (supra), the facts were to the effect that the involvement of the accused concerned was evident and eyewitnesses including the injured persons had deposed, unmistakably, against the accused. 115. In the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Mangilal (2002 (3) WLN 37) (supra), the facts were to the effect that the involvement of the accused concerned was evident and eyewitnesses including the injured persons had deposed, unmistakably, against the accused. The trial Court dismissed the application under Section 319 of the Cr, P. C. making an observation that unless the Investigating Officer was examined, the application could not be allowed. This Court found that such an approach was faulty and examination ot an Investigating Officer was not a condition precedent before the application under Section 319 of the Cr. P. C. could be allowed. 116. In the case of Kishun Singh ( 1993 CrLJ 1700 : 1993 AIR SCW 771) (supra), the challan was filed and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Even before recording a single witness, the learned trial Court allowed the application under Section 319 of the Cr. P. C. The Apex Court gave a finding that Section 319 of the Cr. P. C. could be invoked, not before examining a single witness in the trial Court. Needless to say that the facts of this case are not at all similar to that case. 117. The other citations relied upon on behalf of the petitioner and reproduced above, do not pertain to the provisions of Section 319 ot the Cr. P. C. and hence, deserve no discussion. 118. Thelatest relevant Judgment on the point is the case of Michael Machado vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2000 Cri LR 265 : ( 2000 CrLJ 1706 : AIR 2000 SC 1127 ). It has been held by the Apex Court that Section 319 of the Cr. P. C. provides a discretion to the concerned Court and in an appropriate case, the Court “may proceed” against a person for compelling reasons. The observations made in this respect may be reproduced (Para 12): “It is not that the Court should turn against another person whenever it comes across evidence connecting that another person also with the offence. 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 has spent for collecting such evidence. 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 has spent for collecting such evidence. It must be remembered that there is no compelling duty on the Court to proceed against other persons.” 19. Relying on an earlier Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Council of Delhi vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi, reported in (1983) 1 SCC 01: ( 1983 CrLJ 159 : AIR 1983 SC 67 ) the Apex Court further observed that the exercise of powers under Section 319 of the Cr. P. C. was not a routine thing, and it being an extraordinary power, the same could be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons existed for taking cognizance against the other person against whom action has not been taken. 20. It will not be out of place to mention here that out of 54 witnesses listed, now only a dozen are to be examined and in this way, most of the witnesses have already been examined. In this connection, the following observations made by the Apex Court in Michael Machado’s case ( 2000 CrLJ 1706 : AIR 2000 SC 1127 ) (supra) are noteworthy (Para 14):-- “The Court while deciding whether to invoke the power Under Section 319 of the Code, must address itself about the other constraints imposed by the first limb of Sub-section (4), that proceedings in respect of newly added persons shall be commenced afresh and the witnesses re-examined. The whole proceedings must be re-commenced 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 a 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 reasonable prospect of the case as against the newly brought accused ending in conviction of the offence concerned we would say that the Court should refrain from adopting such a course of action.” 21. Unless the Court is hopeful that there is reasonable prospect of the case as against the newly brought accused ending in conviction of the offence concerned we would say that the Court should refrain from adopting such a course of action.” 21. When the test of the ratio laid down in Michael Machado’s case (supra) is applied to the facts of this case, there remains no justification to allow the revision petition. The main accused Ram Vilas alias Ram Kailash is in custody for more than 23 months and allowing the application under Section 319 of the Cr. P. C. would amount to de novo trial recalling all the witnesses again. 22. Consequently, the revision petition is found to be without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.