JUDGMENT 1. - Both the revisions arise against the same order, hence, are being disposed of vide common order. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that one FIR was registered at concerned Police Station on 4.3.91, on Parchabayan of the informant Shri Dinesh, PW-2, with regard to an incident which took place on the same day and a number of persons got so many injuries and two persons Kamal and Ayodhya Prasad died. 3. After investigation charge sheet under various Sections of IPC including that of Section 302 was submitted against 23 accused persons in June 1991. The learned trial Judge framed charges on 7.8.92 and thereafter prosecution evidence commenced on 15.1.2002. Statement of PW-9 Amar Singh was recorded on 28.11.02. Thereafter an application u/s. 319 Cr.P.C. was moved on behalf of the complainant for adding nine persons as accused who were named in this application. Some of the accused already facing trial filed reply to this application and learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Bharatpur, vide impugned order dated 13.1.2003, took cognizance against seven accused persons for the various offences including Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. All the seven persons added as accused are named in the impugned order. Out of these seven newly added accused persons, four accused persons viz. Vishambhar Singh, Shyam @ Brijesh, Guddu alias Devendra and Naresh filed this revision No. 87/2003 while Shri Ram Narain filed another revision Petition No. 170/03. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, learned Public Prosecutor and gone through the. entire material available on the records and also the impugned order. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be appropriate to reproduce Section 319 Cr.P.C. "319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.-(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. (2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. (2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. (3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed. (4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1), (a) the proceedings in respect of such persons shall be commenced afresh, and the witnesses re-heard; (b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced. A bare perusal of the above provision goes to show that the Court may proceed against any other such person who appears to have committed the offence on the basis of the evidence recorded during trial. 5. Learned counsel Shri Sharma, for accused Ram Narain contended that final report was submitted on the ground that the accused Ram Narain was admitted in the hospital and then he was not present at the place of occurrence; that none of the eye-witnesses stated about his presence in their statements recorded u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. although he was named in additional statements recorded after 10 or 12 days of the incident; that charge sheet came to be filed in June 1991 and charges were framed in August 1992, but the cognizance was taken in January 2003 and thus the cognizance was taken after extraordinary delay that the cognizance can be taken only when there is possibility of conviction. According to learned counsel Shri Sharma, there is no such evidence. Reliance is placed upon the following judgments: (1) State of Assam v. Abdul Halim & Ors., AIR 1992 Supreme Court 2068 . In this case the order of cognizance as provided u/s. 319 Cr.P.C. passed by learned Sessions Judge was set-aside by a Single Judge of the High Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court setting- aside the order of the High Court held that it would not be proper to ask the accused persons to face trial after lapse of 18 years. In this case the order of cognizance as provided u/s. 319 Cr.P.C. passed by learned Sessions Judge was set-aside by a Single Judge of the High Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court setting- aside the order of the High Court held that it would not be proper to ask the accused persons to face trial after lapse of 18 years. (2) In Dindayal Sharma v. State, RCC May, 1996, 267 , this Court keeping in view the facts and much delay in filling the application, held that the application was filed with mala fide intention, set-aside the cognizance order passed by learned A.C.J.M. (3) In Michael Machado & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., 2000 Cri.L.J. 1706 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that cognizance as provided u/s 319 Cr.P.C. against the additional accused at belated stage after cross-examination of 54 prosecution witnesses was found not proper. Learned counsel Shri Sharma referred paras 11, 12, 14 and 16 of this judgment. It was held by Hon'ble Apex Court that only on account of some suspicion, recourse to Section 319 Cr.P.C. should not be taken and there should be some reasonable prospect of convicting the appellant of the offence of criminal conspiracy. Learned counsel Mr. Poonia supported the contentions raised by Mr. Sharma and further contended that there was no such evidence for adding these persons as accused and that too at such a belated stage. He also preferred the medical evidence adduced before the trial Court and placed reliance upon Smt. Rukhsana Khatoon v. Sakhawat Hussain & Ors., AIR 2002 Supreme Court 2342 , wherein it was held that persons named as an accused in FIR but not charge- sheeted, can be summoned and arraigned as. accused u/s. 319 Cr.P.C. particularly when prosecution evidence corroborated the role of such accused persons in the alleged incident. Learned Public Prosecutor and. learned counsel for the complainant sup- ported the impugned order. According to the counsel for the complainant, some of the accused persons already facing trial preferred revision before this Court against the order of framing of charges and record of trial Court was lying here with the revision, hence that prosecution evidence commenced at very late stage and for the neither the prosecution nor the complain- ant party is responsible. He placed reliance upon Smt. Rukhsana Khatoon's case (referred here-in-above) and Girish Yadav & Ors. He placed reliance upon Smt. Rukhsana Khatoon's case (referred here-in-above) and Girish Yadav & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 3098 . In para 15 of this judgment, it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court that it is not possible to agree with this contention that since the police did not submit charge-sheet, cognizance u/s. 319 Cr.P.C. could not be taken as there was enough power with the Court to exercise its jurisdiction u/s. 319 Cr.P.C. In Abdul Salam v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2003 Cr.L.J. 216 , Allahabad High Court held that in case of prima facie evidence showing involvement of newly added accused cognizance u/s. 319 Cr.P.C. was proper. 6. I have considered the rival submissions, material available on the record and the impugned order in the light of the judgments cited hereinabove. It is made clear that after passing the impugned order, in all 24 prosecution witnesses have been examined. Learned counsel, Mr. Poona referred the statement of PW-20 Dr. Bhopal Singh and urged that no final and definite opinion regarding the cause of death of Ayodhya Prasad has been given. Firstly, this argument can not be considered at this stage with regard to cognizance order and secondly while preparing the injury report of deceased, it was opined that all 17 injuries cumulatively were responsible for causing the death. A number of persons whose statements were recorded prior to this impugned order, got a number of injuries according to the statement of PW-20 Dr. Bhopal Singh and they all stated before the trial Court against these five accused persons showing their involvement in the said crime and their names find place in the FIR also. These facts are not disputed that this incident is alleged to have taken place on 4.3.1991, charge sheet was submitted on 27.6.1991, charges were framed on 7.8.1992; the first prosecution witness was examined on 15.1.2002; the statement of PW-9 Amar Singh was recorded on 28.11.2002 and application u/s. 319 Cr.P.C. was filed thereafter. Thus, the prosecution evidence commenced after a considerable delay. But the learned counsel for the complainant made it clear that delay was on account of filing the revision against the order of framing the charges as record of the trial Court was lying here with revision. Thus, the prosecution evidence commenced after a considerable delay. But the learned counsel for the complainant made it clear that delay was on account of filing the revision against the order of framing the charges as record of the trial Court was lying here with revision. Learned trial Judge has passed a well-reasoned order, having taken into consideration the entire material available on the record. It is also important to mention here that prosecution list contained 32 witnesses and PW-1 was not an eye-witness. The statement of PW-2 was recorded on 24.7.2002 and as stated hereinabove the statement of PW-9 was recorded on 28.11.2002 and thus no delay was caused either by the prosecution or by the complainant in this case. I think, to make any other observation on the merit of the case may prejudice case of the parties but I find no illegality, or impropriety in the impugned order. Consequently, both the revisions alongwith stay applications are hereby dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******