Judgment K.C. Sharma, J.-Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. On the report of one Shanker Lal Meena (since deceased) the police registered a criminal case for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 379 and 302 IPC vide FIR No. 123/2000 against as many as 11 persons including the accused non-petitioners. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against five accused, namely Gyarsilal, Panchu Ram, Kalyan, Ghasi Ram and Smt. Gaura. 3. It appears that after the statements of as many as 15 witnesses were recorded, an application under Section 319 CrPC came to be filed on 7.2003 on behalf of prosecution, with the prayer that non-petitioners be summoned and tried together with the accused who are already facing trial. 4. The learned trial Court, on hearing the parties and considering the evidence and material before it, dismissed the application under Section 319 CrPC filed on behalf of the prosecution, on the ground that out of 49 listed witnesses, only 13 witnesses remained to be examined and out of these remaining witnesses most of them are witnesses to the seizure, medical officers and the Investigating Officer. The trial Court was further of the view that matter is pending since 2000 and in the circumstances, therefore, if cognizance is taken, the witnesses will have to be summoned again and that trial would commence afresh. One more ground prevailed with the trial Court in rejecting the application was that the prosecution witnesses are interested in so far as accused non-petitioners are concerned and there are contradictions in their statements. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC. 6. Mr. Gupta, appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that not only the accused petitioners are named in the FIR, but specific allegations have also been levelled against them. According to him, the eye witnesses already examined during trial have specifically stated about the role played by each of the non-petitioners in commission of crime. Thus sufficient material was available before the trial Court so as to enable it to take cognizance of the offence in respect of non-petitioners and put them to trial together with other accused. But the leanred trial Court has over looked the evidence which clinches the issue. 7. Thus sufficient material was available before the trial Court so as to enable it to take cognizance of the offence in respect of non-petitioners and put them to trial together with other accused. But the leanred trial Court has over looked the evidence which clinches the issue. 7. Per contra, learned Counsel for the accused non-petitioner have opposed the revision petition on the ground that revisional powers should be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interests of public justice require interference for correction of a manifest illegality or to prevent gross miscarriage of justice. In the case at hand neither there is any manifest illegality in the impugned order nor the same has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice. Learned Counsel further argued that petitioner being a private party has no locus standi to file the revision petition. Lastly, learned Counsel argued that complainant has filed the application at the fake end of trial and, therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to take cognizance of the offence against the accused respondents at such highly belated stage. 8. I have considered the rival submissions. Firstly I shall deal with the preliminary objection raised by the Counsel for the non-petitioners that whether a private party has locus standi to file a revision petition in a prosecution launched by the State. Learned Counsel has relied upon Bhupendra Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan ( 1996 CrLJ 3180 ), Amichand Ahir and etc. vs. Krishan Kumar & Anr., 1997 CrLJ 1416 and Thakur Ram & Ors. vs. State of Bihar, 1966 CrLJ 700 . 9. Though in Amichands case (Supra) it was held that a private person has no locus standi in a police case to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 397 CrPC, but at the same time it was observed that the above general rule may admit of certain exceptions under very exceptional circumstances. Likewise in Thakur Rams case (Supra) the same view was reiterated with the following observations: "Barring a few exceptions, in criminal matters the party who is treated as the aggrieved party is the State which is the custodian of the social interests of the community at large and so it is for the State to take all the steps necessary for bringing the person who has acted against the social interests of the community to book." 10. Mr. Mr. Gupta, Counsel for the petitioner has referred to a decision of the Apex Court in Gurshinder Singh vs. Joga Singh & Anr., 1999 SCC 1311 (Cr), wherein, brother of deceased moved the High Court in revision under Section 397 CrPC as the State did not bother to file any appeal against acquittal. Their Lordships of the Apex Court remitted the case to the High Court for disposal of the revision petition afresh after considering the merits of the case and observed:- "We have an obvious handicap in going into the merits of the case because the High Court has refused to consider the case on merits. This is not a case where the revision should have been dismissed summarily as has been done by the High Court. The case as presented by the prosecution requires a detailed scrutiny and evaluation of the evidence at the revisional stage, particularly because the State did not choose to file any appeal. Interest of justice requires that the revisional jurisdiction should have been exercised in an effective manner for ascertaining whether the acquittal was unmerited and consequently whether there was miscarriage of justice". 11. In K. Chinnaswamy Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., AIR 1962 SC 1788 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have propounded that the High Court is competent in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the State may not have thought fit to challenge the acquittal in appeal. 12. Again in Kaptan Singh & Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., 1997 (6) SCC 185 , the Apex Court further took the view that High Court can exercise revisional powers under Section 401 CrPC in the matter filed by private party. In doing so, their Lordships referred to the decision in K. Chinnaswamy Reddys case (Supra). 13. Thus, the general legal proposition that emerges from the above referred case laws is that a private person has no locus standi in a police case to invoke jurisdiction of the Court under Section 397 CrPC. However, under exceptional circumstances the powers under Section 397 CrPC can be exercised even in revision filed by a private person. 14. Now I proceed to deal with another question whether power under Section 319 CrPC can be exercised at a belated stage. 15. Mr. However, under exceptional circumstances the powers under Section 397 CrPC can be exercised even in revision filed by a private person. 14. Now I proceed to deal with another question whether power under Section 319 CrPC can be exercised at a belated stage. 15. Mr. Ashvin Garg, Counsel for the non-petitioner while relying upon two decisions of this Court in Tara Chand & Ors. vs. State of Raj., 2004 (2) RCC 807 and Pratap Singh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2003 (2) RCC 788 submitted that powers under Section 319 CrPC cannot be exercised at such a belated stage. 16. It is not in dispute that when prosecution moved an application under Section 319 CrPC the statement of as many as 15 witnesses were recorded. Out of 49 prosecution witnesses the prosecution declined to examine 18 witnesses and 3 witnesses have passed away. Therefore, at that time 13 more witnesses remained to be examined. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that on 2nd February, 2005 the trial Court delivered the Judgment convicting Gyarsilal and Panchu Ram for offence under Section 323 and 302/34 IPC and accused Kalyan under Sections 323, 302/34 and 379 IPC and acquitted remaining two accused, namely Ghasi Ram and Smt. Gaura. 17. While interpreting the words `could be tried together with the accused used in Section 319 CrPC the Apex Court in Shashikant Singh vs. Tarkeshwar Singh, AIR 2002 SC 2031 held that mandate of law of fresh trial is mandatory whereas mandate that newly added accused could be tried together with the accused is directory. Their Lordships in para 10 held as under:- "The provisions cannot be interpreted to mean that since the trial in respect of a person who was before the Court has concluded with the result that the newly added person cannot be tried together with the accused who was before the Court when order under Section 319(1) was passed, the order would become ineffective and inoperative, nullifying the option earlier formed by the Court on the basis of evidence before it that the newly added person appears to have committed the offence resulting in an order for his being brought before the Court." Their Lordships further held:-"In this view the fact that trial against Chandra Shekhar Singh had already concluded is of no consequence insofar as respondent No. 1 is concerned." 18. Now the important question that comes up for consideration would be as to when can the revisional powers under Section 397/401 CrPC be exercised by the High Court. 19. It is no doubt true that revisional powers could be exercised only in exceptional cases where there is a manifest error on a point of law or for prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. 20. In the case at hand, the trial Court while considering the statement of prosecution witnesses has observed that "witnesses are interested and there are contradictions in their statements. PW . 1 Sheonarayan has specifically deposed that Ghan Shaym inflicted blow on the head of his mother Gyana by blunt side of axe. The witness also named Gopal and Ram Kishan who also inflicted injuries. PW . 2 Manna Lal has also deposed that Ghan Shyam inflicted injury on the head of Gyana by axe. This witness also deposed that Gopal was also present there with him. However, he has not shown the presence of Ram Kishan. PW . 3 Kamli has deposed that Ghanshyam inflicted axe blow on the head of Gyana. She also showed the presence of Gopal and Ram Kishan at the time of incident. 9.21. PW . 4 Manni, PW . 5 Bhori Lal, PW . 6 Mohan Lal, PW . 7 Mangli, PW . 8 Lallu Ram, PW . 9 Makhol, PW . 12 Laxmi Narayan, PW . 13 Nangi other eye witnesses of the incident have also categorically deposed that Ghan Shyam inflicted axe blow on the head of Gyana. 10.22. Apart from what has been deposed by the eye witnesses, the FIR also mentions the allegations that Ghan Shyam inflicted blow on Gyana. 123. The learned trial Court discarded the testimony of the above witnesses on the ground of they being interested and made contradictory statements about the presence of Ram Kishan and Gopal. Further there is no injury on the head of Gyana by sharp edged weapon. The trial Court has not considered the statements of Sheonarayan, Bhori Lal, Mohan Lal and Mangli in which they have specifically deposed that Ghan Shyam used blunt side of axe to inflict injury on the head of Gyana. Further there is no injury on the head of Gyana by sharp edged weapon. The trial Court has not considered the statements of Sheonarayan, Bhori Lal, Mohan Lal and Mangli in which they have specifically deposed that Ghan Shyam used blunt side of axe to inflict injury on the head of Gyana. In this view of the matter, I am of the firm opinion that at the stage of 319 CrPC the Court cannot judge as to which witnesses are reliable as the reliability has to be decided ultimately during trial. Considering the statements of eye witnesses, the allegations levelled in FIR and the Post-mortem report, in which the cause of death was shown to be head injury, it cannot be said that there is no reasonable prospect of conviction of Ghan Shyam, who appears to be the main accused. No doubt, powers under Section 319 CrPC are to be used sparingly, but that would not mean that when the allegations in FIR, the statements of eye witnesses supported by medical evidence involve Ghanshyam in a serious crime, he is not to be added as accused. Therefore, I am of the view that under exceptional circumstances where State has not challenged the impugned order, revision petition by a private party can be entertained for prevention of flagrant miscarriage of justice. 24. So far as Gopal and Ram Kishan are concerned, some of the eye witnesses of the incident have shown their presence at the time of incident, but no specific role has been assigned to them. Even some of the witnesses have not shown their presence. The statements may create some suspicion against them, but that is not sufficient to hold that there is reasonable prospects of convicting them of the alleged offence. 25. The result of the above discussion is that this revision petition is partly allowed. The impugned order qua Ghan Shyam is set aside and the trial Court is directed to implead Ghan Shaym as co-accused. He be summoned to stand trial under Section 302 IPC. The impugned order qua accused Ram Kishan and Gopal is confirmed.