JUDGMENT 1. - The instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 28.11.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali in Sessions Case No.40/2010 whereby the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the petitioners as additional accused in this case for conspiracy in committing rape, was accepted. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the statement of the prosecutrix Smt. Rekha recorded at the trial submits that even if the said statement is accepted to be true at its highest, then also the allegation of conspiracy cannot be substantiated. He submits that the highest allegation of the prosecution is that the principal accused Mukesh was behaving with the petitioners in an obscene manner, whereafter both of them went away, and after that Mukesh told the prosecutrix to bring water and thereafter followed her and committed rape upon her. He further alleged that petitioners were told about the incident but they rather than helping of the prosecutrix, did not act in the manner in which they were required to act. 3. Learned counsel submits that merely by this fact, it cannot be inferred that the petitioners had conspired with the principal accused for facilitating the act of rape by the principal accused upon the prosecutrix. Learned counsel submits that for the purpose of proceeding against an additional accused under section 319 Cr.P.C., a specific finding has to be arrived at that there is a reasonable possibility of the newly added accused being convicted in the case, then only the additional accused can be summoned for trial with the principal accused. Thus, he submits that there is no such finding of the trial court in this case, and therefore the order summoning the additional accused is absolutely illegal. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer made and submits that for the purpose of taking cognizance against the accused, merely the existence of a prima facie evidence is sufficient and thus, no illegality has been committed by the learned trial Judge in directing the petitioners to be summoned as an additional accused in this case. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at bar and have perused the order of the court below as well as the evidence recorded at the trial. 6. The prosecutrix in this case was examined on 20.10.2010. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at bar and have perused the order of the court below as well as the evidence recorded at the trial. 6. The prosecutrix in this case was examined on 20.10.2010. Thereafter, the complete prosecution evidence was recorded at the trial and the case was posted for the statements of the principal accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. At that stage, the application was moved for summoning of the present petitioners and the learned trial Judge has proceeded to summon the present petitioners as additional accused in this case. 7. A perusal of the order impugned does not disclose that the trial Judge has arrived at any such satisfaction that there is a reasonable possibility of the newly added accused being convicted on the basis of uncontroverted prosecution evidence. That apart, I have carefully considered the statements of the prosecutrix recorded at the trial and in her cross-examination, the prosecutrix has stated that the co-accused committed rape upon her 4-5 times. The presence of the petitioners with the prosecutrix is alleged only on the first occasion. Therefore, the theory of the prosecution that the petitioners were conspirators with the co-accused, does not appear to be plausible. 8. Resultantly, the revision petition succeeds. The order dated 28.11.2011 passed by the learned court below whereby the petitioners have been summoned as additional accused in this case, is hereby quashed.Stay petition also stands disposed of.Revision allowed. *******