JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 4.4.2000 whereby application under Section 319, Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The main contention of the State is that the State has filed application under Section 319, Cr.P.C. to implead Garib Das as accused. The learned PP has submitted that there is prima facie case against the respondent No. 8. He has been specifically named in the F.I.R. Both witnesses Ram Chandra and Ram Kishan have stated specific overt act of the present respondent and hence the trial Court was wrong in not impleading him as party. 4. The conclusion of the trial Court goes to show that the application was rejected on the ground that after recording evidence of the Investigating Officer, the same will be considered. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that now the prosecution evidence has been concluded and the matter should have been again considered by the trial Court. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the trial Court has not considered the application in right perspective to the material on record goes to show that there are prima facie allegation against the respondent and cognizance should have been taken against him. 7. Looking to the material available on record, prima facie case is made out against respondent No. 8. Both the eye-witnesses have specifically named respondent and specific overt act has also been attributed to him, hence it was a fit case where cognizance should have been taken against respondent No. 8. Hence the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 8. The revision petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order is hereby quashed and the application under Section 319, Cr.P.C. on behalf of the State is allowed and the respondent No. 8 should be tried against the alleged offences with the other co accused.Revision allowed. *******