Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.:— Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State. By this revision, the revisionists have challenged the order dated 06.07.2012 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Ex Cadre) II, Auraiya in S.T. No.7 of 2011, whereby, in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the revisionists have been summoned to face trial, under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (X) of S.C & S.T. Act. The facts of the case in brief are that a First Information Report was lodged by the opposite party no.2 (Kumari Bebi) against Shiloo (the revisionist no.2), Arun, Brijesh Awasthi and Mamta (the revisionist no.1) for offences punishable under Section 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (X) of S.C. & S.T. Act. On the basis of the said First Information Report, investigation was carried out and a charge sheet was laid only against Arun and Brijesh Awasthi, whereas final report was submitted with respect to Shiloo (the revisionist no.2) and Mamta (the revisionist no.1). During the course of trial, statement of Bebi (the opposite party no.2 herein) was recorded as P.W.1. Bebi was also injured in the incident. In her statement, on oath, she disclosed the complicity of the revisionists. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Suman v. State of Rajasthan and another reported in (2010) 1 SCC 250 the court below was of the view that since the complicity of Mamta and Shiloo were disclosed from the initial stage itself and their complicity was affirmed in the statement of Bebi, recorded during trial, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice that they may be added as additional accused and face trial along with the other accused persons. Accordingly, the court below summoned the revisionists, in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Challenging the order passed by the court below, learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the court below has not recorded any satisfaction that the evidence led before it was reasonably sufficient to record conviction. It has further been contended that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not to be ordinarily exercised and should be used sparingly. It has further been contended that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not to be ordinarily exercised and should be used sparingly. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarojben Ashwinkumar Shah and others v. State of Gujarat and another reported in (2011) 13 SCC 316 . Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that since the complicity of the revisionists were disclosed from the initial stages itself and their complicity has been re-affirmed by the testimony of Bebi (P.W.1), who is also an injured witness, it should be inferred that the evidence on record was sufficient, so as to reasonably lead to conviction of the persons sought to be added, if the testimony remains unrebutted. Having considered the rival submissions, since the complicity of the revisionists was disclosed from the initial stage itself, I am of the view that the exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., on the statement of P.W.1 (Bebi) who was an injured witness and had supported the version taken in the First Information Report, cannot be faulted. This view also draws support from the judgment of the Apex Court in Suman v. State of Rajasthan and another reported in (2010) 1 SCC 250 where, in paragraph no.27 of the judgment, the Apex Court observed as under:- "27. In view of the settled legal position as above, we hold that a person who is named in the first information report or complaint with the allegation that he/she has committed any particular crime or offence, but against whom the police does not launch prosecution or files charge-sheet or drops the case, can be proceeded against under Section 319 Cr.P.C. if from the evidence collected/produced in the course of any inquiry into or trial of an offence, the Court is prima facie satisfied that such person has committed any offence for which he can be tried with other accused. As a corollary, we hold that the process issued against the appellant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot be quashed only on the ground that even though she was named in the complaint, the police did not file charge-sheet against her." Further in the case of Ram Pal Singh and others v. State of U.P. and another reported in (2009) 4 SCC 423 , in paragraph nos.18, 19 and 20 of the judgment, the Apex Court observed as under:- "18. All that is required by the Court for invoking its powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C.is to be satisfied that from the evidence adduced before it, a person against whom no charge had been framed, but whose complicity appears to be clear, should be tried together with the accused. It is also clear that the discretion is left to the Court to take a decision on the matter. 19. In the instant case, although, the appellants were named in the F.I.R., they were not named as accused in the charge-sheet during the trial. However, P.W.1 in his evidence, has named the appellants as persons who were involved in the incident causing the death of Brijesh Kumar Singh and injuries to Manvender Singh. Despite the above, the trial Court, on two separate occasions, rejected the prayer made by the Respondent No.2 for summoning the appellants herein under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The High Court, after considering the evidence of P.W.1, Kamlesh Singh, thought it necessary for the appellants to be summoned. 20. Although, certain other observations made by the High Court regarding the orders passed by the Trial Court could and should have been avoided, we are also of the view that the High Court had not committed any error in directing that the appellants be summoned to stand trial along with the co-accused, in view of the evidence of P.W.1 during the trial itself." In view of the law noticed hereinabove, I do not find any legal infirmity, illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the courts below. The revision application is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in case the revisionists surrender before the court concerned and apply for bail, within 15 days from today, their bail application shall be considered expeditiously, in accordance with law. _