JUDGMENT 1. - The instant revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by the accused petitioners against the order dated 6.3.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Alwar in Sessions Case No. 49/2005 (121/2005) whereby application under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code has been allowed and the presence of the accused petitioners has been sought through arrest warrants. 2. The relevant facts giving rise to this petition are that on 31.7.2005, complainant Hanuman made a written report at P.S. Thanagazi stating therein that when he was grazing his buffaloes in his field his brother Dataram and This wife Mst. Prabhat were sitting in their field under the Babul Tree taking their lunch. At around 1,30 p.m. accused persons suddenly came there with the intention to kill Dataram and assaulted on him, as a result of which, Dataram and Mst. Prabhati received numerous injuries, Then, they fled away from there presuming that Dataram was dead. On the written report, FIR being No. 70/2005 came to be registered at P,S, Thangazi. After due investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against accused Navin, Banwari, Kaluram @ Bullaram and Dholiya . Rajendra for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 326, 323 and 447 Indian Penal Code. Kaluram . Bullaram and Dholiya Rajendra being juvenile their case-was transferred to the Juvenile Justice Board. 3. After examination of witnesses namely; Hanuman PW1, Lalluram Sharma PW2, 1-Iariram PW3, Badri PW4, Ramchandra PW5, Khamburam PW6, Khyali Ram PW7, Kaluram PW8, Giriraj Prasad Gujar Pw9, Mst. Prabhati PW10, Dr. Rajkumar Sain PW11, Gautam Chand Verma P'W12, Heeralal PW13, Shabhudayla PW14, Mst. Mukeshi PW15, Sardar PW16, Leelaram PW17 and Anil Kumar PW18, learned additional Public Prosecutor filed an application under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code for arraying other accused person which was allowed vide order dated 6.3.2006 vide which accused Banwari and Naveen were convicted for offences under Sections 148, 447, 302 read with S.149, 323 read with S.149 Indian Penal Code. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioners have challenged the order by way of this revision petition. 5. It is contended that the trial court has committed serious error of law because the petitioners have been summoned for trial at the end of the trial of the co-accused which is not permissible under the law. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioners have challenged the order by way of this revision petition. 5. It is contended that the trial court has committed serious error of law because the petitioners have been summoned for trial at the end of the trial of the co-accused which is not permissible under the law. Therefore, the said order is not sustainable and deserves to be set-aside and quashed. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the case of Samartha Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. 2002 (2) RLR 230 = RLW 2002 (2) Raj. 1328 , wherein it has been held that trial of the persons to be added as accused has to be with the accused already before the Court and separate trial is not envisaged. It is not the object of the provisions of Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code that a separate trial should be held. 6. Reliance has also been placed in the cases of Chittar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan : 1998 RCC 89 and Panchu Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan 1998 (1) RLR 55 : RLW 1998 (3) Raj. 1992. 7. But Hon'ble Apex Court has held in Shashikant Singh Vs. Tarkeshwar Singh and anr. (2002) 5 SCC 738 , that trial of newly added accused on conclusion of main trial can be held. Requirement under sub-section (1) of Section 319 that person summoned could be tried together with the accused is directory whereas requirement under sub-section (4) of Section 319 regarding de novo trial of such person is mandatory. 8. In view of the law propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shashikant Singh Vs. Tarkeshwar Singh and anr. (supra), the judgment of this Court in the cases of Samartha Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. , Chittar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Panchu Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), appear to be impliedly over ruled and in view of the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case, there is absolutely no illegality or infirmity in the order dated 6.3.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), No.1, Alwar. 9. Consequently, this revision petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******