( 1 ) CRIMINAL Revision Case No. 1467 of 2004 is filed by the State and Criminal Revision case No. 1551 of 2004 is field by P. W. 1, both against the order dated 14-07-2004 in crl. M. P. No. 136f 2004 in S. C. No. 378 of 1998 on the file of the VI Additional Sessions judge, Gooty, (Fast Track Court), Gooty. ( 2 ) THE facts are as follows: on 26-07-1997 at about 6 pm, while the deceased-Yeddula Siva Prasad Reddy was coming on motorbike, accused armed with deadly weapons, allegedly attacked and killed the deceased. P. W. 1 lodged complaint with the police and investigation was taken up. On an application made by the respondents in Crl. R. C. No. 1551 of 2004, the superintendent of Police, Anantapur District got the matter investigated by the Deputy superintendent of Police, Guntakal and on the basis of his report, deleted the names of the present respondents from the array of accused. They were not included in the charge-sheetfiled on 07-11 -1997. Thereafter the case was committed to Sessions Court on 10-11-1997 and numbered as S. C. No. 378 of 1998. Since then, the trial could not proceed for some reason and P. W. 1 was examined on 07-07-2004. Thereafter a petition under Section 319 of the Code of criminal procedure (Cr. P. C.) was filed for arraying the present respondents as accused. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the petition by an elaborate order, almost giving a finding that the present respondents have not participated in the offence. Assailing the same, firstly, the state filed Crl. R. C. No. 1476 of 2004 and thereafter, P. W. 1, the de facto complainant filed Crl. R. C. No. 1551 of 2004. ( 3 ) NOW the contention of the learned public Prosecutor is that the material on record reveals that the present respondents have actively participated in the offence and their names were found in the FIR and the statements of witnesses, that being, the case, it was not at all justified for the prosecuting agency to delete their names from the charge sheet on the basis of the investigation made by the Deputy Superintendent of Police on the directions of the Superintendent of Police. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the plea of alibi of the respondents was thoroughly investigated into at the instance of the Superintendent of Police, Ananthapur by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, gunthakal, which revealed that at the time of incident the first respondent was at Police station which was proved through the evidenced of the SI of Police and others and the second respondent who was a student of engineering at Chikballapur was present at chikballapur. Thereafter, no step were taken either by the prosecution or by the de facto complainant against deletion of the names of the present respondents, that is obviously because there was no participation of the present respondents in the offence. That, now on account of change of Government in the State on account of local politics the respondents are being persecuted. ( 5 ) NOW the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds to allow the revisions. ( 6 ) IT was a case where the Superintendent of Police got the plea of alibi of the respondents, got investigated by the Deputy superintendent of Police and then, on his satisfaction, got their names deleted from the array of accused, though their names were found in the FIR and statements of the witnesses. ( 7 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl. R. C. No. 1551 of 2004 is that it was not for the police officers to accept the aliabli and delete the names of the respondents from the array of accused but it is for the Court to do the same. ( 8 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that it is the duty of the investigating Officer to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegation before filing the charge-sheet and the same was done and as there was no truth in the allegations made against the respondents, they were not charge sheeted. ( 9 ) AS already referred, the offence took place on 26-07-1997 and the charge-sheet was filed on 07-11 -1997, after the police got investigated into the plea of alibi of the present respondents. The prosecution has actively participated in the process of investigation and the Public Prosecutor, who field the impugned Crl. ( 9 ) AS already referred, the offence took place on 26-07-1997 and the charge-sheet was filed on 07-11 -1997, after the police got investigated into the plea of alibi of the present respondents. The prosecution has actively participated in the process of investigation and the Public Prosecutor, who field the impugned Crl. M. P. No. 136 of 2004 before the Sessions Court himself filed the charge- sheet. In case the respondents have participated in the offence, there was no reason for the prosecution to delete their names from the charge-sheet. Similarly, p. W. 1 knows that the present respondents were declared from the array of accused. He never took any steps to get them included as accused. Charges in the Sessions Case were framed on 25-08-2003. Then also neither the public Prosecutor nor P. W. 1 took any steps. Only on 07-7-2004, the impugned crl. M. P. No. 136 of 2004 was field under section 319 Cr. P. C. ( 10 ) THE contention of the learned Public prosecutor is that P. W. 1 was examined 07-07-2004 and his evidence revealed the participation of the present respondents as such on the same day the petition was filed. This contention cannot be accepted, as the allegation of participation of present respondents in the offence was already on record, in the FIR and in the statements of the witnesses. After considering the same as well as the other material, after investigation by the Deputy Superintendent of Police on the plea of alibi of the respondents, they were deleted from the array of accused. That being so, there was no decision to be made on the basis of statement of P. W. 1 by the learned public Prosecutor. In case, the Court that examined P. W. 1 has taken suo motu steps, the situation would have been different. On the other hand, here that Court rejected the pleas by dismissing the impugned Crl. M. P. The silence of the prosecuting agency as well as P. W. 1, the de facto complainant for seven years from 07-11-1997 when the charge-sheet was filed till 07-07-2004, when the present petition for impleading the respondents/accused was filed is not at all convincing. In the meanwhile on 25-08-2003 charges were framed. M. P. The silence of the prosecuting agency as well as P. W. 1, the de facto complainant for seven years from 07-11-1997 when the charge-sheet was filed till 07-07-2004, when the present petition for impleading the respondents/accused was filed is not at all convincing. In the meanwhile on 25-08-2003 charges were framed. In case, the respondents were really involved in the offence, first of all, the prosecution would not have deleted them from the charge sheet and P. W. 1 would not have kept quiet. The fact that they kept quiet for seven years would show that the plea of alibi found to be true by the Special Investigating Officer who enquired into the aspect was true. There is force in the contention that on account of political factions the respondents were falsely implicated and that on account of change of government, the Public Prosecutor has now filed the impugned petition, otherwise, there is no explanation for the silence for seven years. Filing the impugned petition by the prosecuting agency who have themselves filed the charge-sheet deleting the respondents supports this contention. It can be contended that earlier without any valid reason the prosecuting agency has deleted the respondents from charge-sheet. In that case, the de facto complainant, P. W. 1, who is none other than the brother of the deceased, would not have kept quite. It is pertinent to refer here that the deceased was an advocate, as such it cannot be believed that the prosecution party was not aware of the deletion of the names of the respondents from charge-sheet at least at that time the charges were farmed. There is absolutely no justification to seekfor inclusion of the present respondents in the array of accused at this stage of seven years gap, that too in the circumstances of the case where knowingly p. W. 1 has kept quiet all these years and the learned Public Prosecutor, who filed the charge-sheet deleting the names of the present respondents himself kept quiet. The file with regard to the investigation by the deputy Superintendent of Police who deleted the names of the present respondents from the array of accused is called for, which shows that the investigation revealed that the present respondents were not involved in the offence. The file with regard to the investigation by the deputy Superintendent of Police who deleted the names of the present respondents from the array of accused is called for, which shows that the investigation revealed that the present respondents were not involved in the offence. ( 11 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor relied on a decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Joginder Singh v. State of Pubjab in support of his contention that the accused, who was omitted by the prosecution from the charge sheet can be include under section 319 Cr. P. C. ( 12 ) IN the above case on 30-04-1977 at 10 am, Joginder Singh, Ram Singh, Bhan singh, Darshan Singh and Rajit Singh have allegedly entered the house of one Mohinder singh and caused injuries to Ajai Singh and 1. AIR 1979 SC 339 . Bir Singh that were present in the house. During the investigation, the police found joginder Singh and Ram Singh to be innocent and the police filed charge-sheet only against the remaining three accused, Bhansingh, darashan Singh and Ranjit Singh and case was committed against those three persons to the Sessions Court and the additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana framed charges against the three accused under sections 452,307 and 323 read with 34 IPC. But at the trial, the evidence of Mohinder singh and Ajaib Singh was recorded, during the course of which, both of them implicated joginder Singh and Ram Singh in the incident. On that, at the instance of Mohinder Singh, the Public Prosecutor moved an application before the learned Sessions Judge for summoning and trying Joginder Singh and ram Singh also along with others, who were already facing trial. It was contended on behalf of those two accused- Joginder Singh and Ram Singh that the Sessions Court had no jurisdiction or power to directly take cognizance of the case against them, in respect of any offence said to have been committed by them. The Additional Sessions court negatived the said contention and passed an order directing attendance of those two accused. Against that Crl. R. C. No. 909 of 1977 was filed in the High Court, which was dismissed by the High Court. Before the hon ble Supreme Court, it was contended that in view of the provisions contained in sections 193 and 209 Cr. Against that Crl. R. C. No. 909 of 1977 was filed in the High Court, which was dismissed by the High Court. Before the hon ble Supreme Court, it was contended that in view of the provisions contained in sections 193 and 209 Cr. P. C. , there was bar to the Sessions Court for taking cognizance of any offence, as a Court of original jurisdiction, unless the appellants were committed to it by the Magistrate under the code; that admittedly, the FIR contained the names of both those accused and in the investigation, the police found no material against them, with the result, they were not charge-sheeted and they were not committed by the learned Magistrate. As such it was not open for the learned Additional Sessions judge to order trial of those two. It was also contended before the Hon ble Supreme Court that Section 319 Cr. P. C. is not applicable for that case for two reasons- firstly Section 319 cr. P. C. being subject to or subordinate to section 193 Cr. P. C. and secondly any person, not being an accused, occurring in section 319 Cr. P. C. , excludes form its operation an accused who has already been released under Section 169 Cr. P. C. The hon ble Supreme Court did not accept these contentions for the reason that without committal also cognizance can be taken under section 319 Cr. P. C. and that the accused, who were let-off in the charge-sheet also can be again arrayed as accused. ( 13 ) IN Joginder Singh s case (1 supra), the offence has taken place on 30 - 04 -1997; the petition to implead the two accused was filed prior to 19 - 10 -1977 as the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, itself, was dated 19-10-1977. Thus, within six months from the date of offence, the petitioner under Section 319 Cr. P. C. , was filed. No doubt, it was a case, where the case has come up for trial within that period and P. W. 1 was examined and thereafter the petitioner under Section 319 Cr. P. C. , was field. ( 14 ) I feel that the above decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case here the powerof the court to proceed directly under Section 319 Cr. P. C. , was field. ( 14 ) I feel that the above decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case here the powerof the court to proceed directly under Section 319 Cr. P. C. , without there being committal and also the power of the court to take cognizance against the persons, who ware excluded in the charges sheet originally, are not the disputed questions. Here the case is of inordinate and unexplained delay in taking action under Section 319 cr. P. C. , with (the delay) could be for obvious reason of truth being there is the earlier investigation that revealed the non participation of the present respondent, on account of which only they were not charge sheeted and subsequent taking action might be on account of the changed circumstances- change of the Government, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent as already discussed.