ORDER N. Dhinakar, C.J. 1. The petitioners were arrayed as accused to face charges under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 477-A and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The allegation in short against the petitioners is that in between 1990-91 and 1994-95, the accused in the crime entered into a criminal conspiracy cheated the Government of Bihar to a tune of Rs. one crore by showing bogus supplies against fake bills submitted by private suppliers and further an amount of Rs. 75,21,800/- which was allotted to the office of the Project Officer, Frozen Semen Bank, Hotwar, Ranchi was misappropriated by manipulating documents. The trial proceeded and the witnesses were examined. The prosecution was closed. The petitioners thereafter filed a petition under Section 319, Cr PC with a prayer that PWs 13, 18, 30 and 41 have to be arrayed as accused in view of the some of the admissions made by them in their evidences. The learned trial Judge dismissed the petition. The said order is being challenged in this revision. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relying upon the evidence of the witnesses to whom the petitioners wanted to be arrayed as accused, submits that since they have admitted that the bogus bills were processed and typed must also be made as accused, as it is a case of conspiracy. 4. I have heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Counsel appearing for the CBI and perused the order. 5. On going through the order, it could be seen that PW 13 was examined on 26.3.2004, PW 18 on 16.4.2004, PW 30 on 6.8.2004 and PW 41 on 3.9.2004. After the case was closed, a petition was filed to bring the above witnesses as accused in the case. The trial Judge considered the evidence of the witnesses, and ultimately decided that they cannot be arrayed as accused. It could be seen from the order that PW 18 has only stated that he typed the allotment letters at the time when the 1st petitioner was present. He has further admitted that he had only complied the direction of the 1st petitioner. It could be seen from the order that PW 18 has only stated that he typed the allotment letters at the time when the 1st petitioner was present. He has further admitted that he had only complied the direction of the 1st petitioner. The trial Judge also found that other three witnesses were employees of the Animal Husbandry department and they had given only evidence as regards the procedure adopted for preparing the supply orders and in absence of any evidence that the above, witnesses are parties to the conspiracy the petitioners cannot seek them to be arrayed as accused in the case. The trial Judge therefore, felt that the present petition was only an afterthought with a view to protract the criminal proceedings by putting the spokes in the wheels of justice. 6. On going through the order, I find that the learned trial Judge was justified in dismissing the petition and I find no reason to interfere with the said order. 7. The revision is dismissed with a direction to the trial Judge to dispose of the trial as expeditiously as possible and in any event within three months from today.