Judgment : This Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner/proposed accused questioning the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruchirappalli, including the petitioner as one of the accused by invoking Section 319 of Cr.P.C. 2. A case for offences punishable under Sections 341, 427, 324 and 506 (II) I.P.C. was registered in Cr.No.505/1997 against four accused including the petitioner. On conclusion of the investigation the name of the petitioner was deleted in the final report. The learned Magistrate took cognisance of the case and proceeded with the trial. Seven witnesses have been examined. In the chief examination, P.W.7 stated that the petitioner herein has caused injury on him. Thereafter, on the strength of evidence of P.W.7, a petition was filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., resulting in the impugned order mentioned above, including the petitioner as one of the accused in the case. 3. Thelearned counsel for the petitioner submits that none of the prosecution witnesses have implicated the petitioner as one of the assailants P.Ws.1 & 2, who are the eye-witnesses, turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. P.W.7 was also treated hostile since he contradicted with regard to his earlier statement made to the police regarding the over act of the petitioner. In the earlier statement, the petitioner has not been implicated as an assailant. 4. Thelearned Government Advocate submits that the name of the petitioner was included in the F.I.R. and for want of materials his name has been deleted in the final report. 5. I have perused the material available on record. A petition under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. has been filed only on the strength of the evidence in chief exmination of P.W.7. P.W.7 has been treated hostile by the prosecution and was questioned regarding the over act of the petitioner. When he was examined by the police during investigation he stated that the accused Ilangovan stabbed him for which he denied. It was suggested again that only due to the instigation of other co-accused such a petition has been filed. 6. Thelearned Magistrate, at the time of taking cognisance, did not include the petitioner as one of the accused in the case. It was suggested again that only due to the instigation of other co-accused such a petition has been filed. 6. Thelearned Magistrate, at the time of taking cognisance, did not include the petitioner as one of the accused in the case. Presently, on the strength of the evidence of P.W.7 in chief examination, which is not supported by his earlier version and which is not corroborated by other eye-witnesses, included the petitioner as an accused at the fag-end of the trial. Even if the order of the learned Magistrate is sustained, it appears that no useful purpose would be achieved, since there is no positive, uncontroverted evidence against the petitioner. It has been held in Michael Machado v. CBI AIR 2000 SC 1127 : 2000 (3) SCC 262 as follows: “11. The basic requirements for invoking the above Section is that it should appear to the Court from the evidence collected during trial or in the inquiry that some other person, who is not arraigned as an accused in that case, has committed an offence for which that person could be tried together with the accused already arraigned. It is not enough that the Court entertained some doubt, from the evidence, about the involvement of another person in the offence. In other words, the Court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence already collected regarding two aspects. First is that the other person has committed an offence. Second is that for such offence that other person could as well be tried along with the already arraigned accused. 12. But even then, what is conferred on the Court is only a discretion as could be discerned from the words “the Court may proceed against such person”. The discretionary power so conferred should be exercised only to achieve criminal justice. It is not that the Court should turn against another person whenever it comes across evidence connecting that other person also with the offence. A judicial exercise is called for, keeping a conspectus of the case, including the stage at which the trial has proceeded already and the quantum of evidence collected till then, and also the amount of time which the Court had spent for collecting such evidence. It must be remembered that there is no compelling duty on the Court to proceed against other persons. 13.……………………………… 14. It must be remembered that there is no compelling duty on the Court to proceed against other persons. 13.……………………………… 14. The Court while deciding whether to invoke the power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., must address itself about the other constraints imposed by the first limb of sub- section (4), that proceedings in respect of newly-added persons shall be commenced afresh and the witnesses re-examined. The whole proceedings must be re-commenced from the beginning of the trial, summon the witnesses once again and examine them and cross-examine them in order to reach the stage where it had reached earlier. If the witnesses already examined are quite large in number the Court must seriously consider whether the objects sought to be achieved by such exercise are worth wasting the whole labour already undertaken. Unless the Court is hopeful that there is a reasonable prospect of the case as against the newly-brought accused ending in being convicted of the offence concerned we would say that the Court should refrain from adopting such a course of action.” 7. In view of the settled position of law as stated above, the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruchirappalli, in Crl.M.P. No. 5519/2003 in C.C.No. 354/1999 dated 16.4.2004 is set aside and this revision is allowed. Consequently, connected Crl.M.Ps are closed. In so far as the pending trial is concerned, the learned Magistrate is directed to proceed in accordance with law.