JUDGMENT Hon’ble Vinod Prasad, J.—Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant criticized the impugned summoning order of the applicant under Section 319, Cr.P.C. dated 7.4.2008 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Gautam Budh Nagar in S.T. No. 624 of 2006, P.S. Sector-24, District Gautam Budh Nagar primarily for three reasons. Firstly, that the applicant is not named in the first information report as an accused. Secondly, that he had got no motive to participate in the incident of committing the murder and lastly that PW-5, on whose statement in the Court, the applicant has been summoned to stand the trial, is an interested witness and he colluded with the main accused persons and to save his skin. He has made a U turned in his statement and implicated the present applicant. Learned Counsel for the applicant has further contended that solitary statement of P.W. 5 by itself is not sufficient to hold the applicant guilty and hence exercise of power under Section 319, Cr.P.C. by the trial Judge to summon the applicant as an accused is not in consonance with law as well as various pronouncements by the Apex Court. Some of those pronouncements which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant are Lokesh Ram v. Nihal Singh and another, AIR 2006 SC (11) 892 (para 12); Palanisamy Gounder and another v. State representated by Inspector of Police, (2005) 12 SCC 327 (para 13) and Kavuluri Vivekananda Reddy and another v. State of A.P. and another, (2005) 12 SCC 432 (para 2). Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that in any view of the matter the impugned order of summoning dated 7.4.2008 is bad in law and deserves to be quashed and this application deserves to be allowed. 3. Sri S.L. Kesarwani, learned AGA and Sri P.C. Pathak learned counsel for the respondent, per contra, contended that there is no infirmity in the impugned summoning order and therefore, this application being bereft of any merit deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have cogitated over rival contentions and have gone through the record of this Criminal Misc. Application along with the appended annexures, with special attention to the statement of witness PW 5, Mukesh Kumar, recorded in the concerned Sessions Trial No. 624/06, State v. Krishna Pal Singh Yadav and others. 5. 4. I have cogitated over rival contentions and have gone through the record of this Criminal Misc. Application along with the appended annexures, with special attention to the statement of witness PW 5, Mukesh Kumar, recorded in the concerned Sessions Trial No. 624/06, State v. Krishna Pal Singh Yadav and others. 5. The controversy in this application lies in a very narrow compass. The question which has been mooted for consideration and judicial determination is as to whether power under Section 319, Cr.P.C. has been exercised by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act) G.B. Nagar in consonance with the statutory provision and the law laid down by the Apex Court or not in respect of Section 319, Cr.P.C.? 6. For a ready reference Section 319, Cr.P.C. is reproduced below : Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.—(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. (2) Where such person is not attending Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. (3) Any person attending the Court although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed. (4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1) then— (a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and the witnesses re-heard; (b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.” 7. A perusal of the aforesaid section admits no exception so far as power to summon any person as accused to stand the trial along with already being tried accused persons are concerned. 8. A perusal of the aforesaid section admits no exception so far as power to summon any person as accused to stand the trial along with already being tried accused persons are concerned. 8. During the course of any trial, from the evidence recorded during the said trial if the evidence comes against any person that he has also committed any offence for which the said person could be tried along with the already being tried accused then that person can also be summoned as accused to stand trial along with the already being tried accused and if such an evidence is brought forth then there is no impediment on the power of the trial Judge to add any person as an accused in the said trial and summon him. Section 319, Cr.P.C. has got two important ingredients firstly, that there should be some evidence against the person who is not facing trial that he has committed any offence for which he could be tried along with already being tried accused and secondly that the persons concerned who is desired to be summoned is not be facing trial in the concerned trial. But for the aforesaid two ingredients there is no other requirement for the trial Judge to exercise power under Section 319, Cr.P.C. 9. Section 319 has been subjected to various judicial pronouncements both by this Court as well as by the Apex Court and hence the controversy which has been agitated before me today in this Application no longer remains res integra. From the judgments, which has been relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant himself, referred to above, it is clear that the law which has now being expounded by the Apex Court is that power under Section 319, Cr.P.C. should be exercised by the trial Judge only for very compelling reasons in rarest of rare cases and only in those cases where the evidence led before it is prima facie sufficient to frame charges at least. Thus, what comes out from the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court is that no body should be summoned only to face the trial. Power under Section 319, Cr.P.C. should be exercised only when there is possibility of conviction of the person desired to be summoned from the evidence led in the trial. 10. Thus, what comes out from the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court is that no body should be summoned only to face the trial. Power under Section 319, Cr.P.C. should be exercised only when there is possibility of conviction of the person desired to be summoned from the evidence led in the trial. 10. From such an exposition of law when I examine the facts of the present case it comes out that the incident occurred in day light inside a Maruti Car. Motivated murder was committed actuated by the fact that the one of the deceased who was the Principal namely Jaswant Singh Tyagi was an injured witness in an earlier murder case in which his son Rajiv Tyagi had lost his life. The earlier murder of the son had occurred inside the Chamber of Jaswant Singh Tyagi. Jaswant Singh Tyagi was to depose in that sessions trial regarding the murder of his son. The accused persons were pressurizing him not to give any evidence and when they failed in their endeavour of pressure tactics then they hatched up a conspiracy and murdered Jaswant Singh Tyagi while he was proceeding towards Noida Development Authority in a Maruti Car which was driven by the present applicant. The movement of the deceased to Noida Development Authority was a fact unknown to the real assailant of the earlier murder case and the applicant. The aforesaid fact was in the knowledge of only 4 persons, the present applicant, Jaswant Singh Tyagi deceased his gunner Murtza Ali who was accompanying him along with Manager of the institution. According to the statement of PW 5, the applicant who was driving the car intentionally stopped it at that very place at the fixed time where the other assailants were waylaying to murder the deceased witness. Such an evidence is sufficient to summon the applicant to face trial as the said evidence by PW 5, if taken to be correct on the face of it, then it can be safely held that the applicant is also guilty of murder. 11. Another reason for which I am not inclined to interfered with the impugned order is that in a post occurrence conduct the present applicant threatened PW 5 not to state about the incident to anybody as has been deposed by him. 11. Another reason for which I am not inclined to interfered with the impugned order is that in a post occurrence conduct the present applicant threatened PW 5 not to state about the incident to anybody as has been deposed by him. According to the case of PW 5 he did inform the real incident to SP and SSP but he was rebuffed by them as SP Noida was a relative of the present applicant. Whether the version of PW 5 in respect of post occurrence conduct is correct or not has to be judged by the trial Judge but if his evidence is taken to be correct, there is no gainsaying that the applicant can be held to be guilty of murder and at present there is sufficient evidence to frame charges against him. Whether PW 5 has taken a U-turn is a matter to be adjudicated by the trial Judge. 12. Without making any further observations, as it may prejudice the case of the applicant, at this stage I don’t find any reason to interfere with the impugned order as in my view it does not suffer from any infirmity of law or of fact. The applicant will have full opportunity to lead his defence and plead his case at the stage of framing of charge under Sections 227 and 228, Cr.P.C. or later on in the trial but so far as the impugned summoning order of the applicant under Section 319, Cr.P.C. is concerned the said order does not suffer from any infirmity of law. 13. The above three judgments relied upon by the counsel for the applicant does not farther of the case of the applicant at all. All those judgments reiterate the same law that the power under Section 319, Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and that too in the cases where the chances of conviction are not remote. From the facts discussed above, I have held that the evidence of PW 5 is sufficient to frame the charge against the applicant and therefore, the power exercised by the trial Judge cannot be said to be de hors the law. 14. This application is meritless and it is dismissed as such. Interim order dated 29.4.2008 stands vacated. From the facts discussed above, I have held that the evidence of PW 5 is sufficient to frame the charge against the applicant and therefore, the power exercised by the trial Judge cannot be said to be de hors the law. 14. This application is meritless and it is dismissed as such. Interim order dated 29.4.2008 stands vacated. Since the trial is very old and the attempt in this case was to tamper with the evidence of the earlier murder case, I direct the trial Court to decide the case expeditiously in accordance with law as provided under Section 309, Cr.P.C. and make an endeavour to conclude it preferably within 6 months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 15. So far as the bail prayer of the applicant is concerned, I also consider it appropriate to direct the trial Court to dispose it on the same day if possible, as the entire material against the applicant is available with it. ————