JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner-applicants have preferred this criminal misc. application under section 482, Cr.P.C. for recalling the order dated 17.8.2011 passed by this Court whereby the Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1148/2006 under section 482. Cr.P.C. was dismissed. 3. The brief relevant facts for the disposal of this application are that at the time of pronouncement of judgment on 1 1.3.2004 in Regular Criminal Case No. 286/2001 the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Laxmangarh, District Alwar took cognizance against the petitioners under section 319, Cr.P.C. for the offences under sections 148. 323, 325/149 and 326/149, I.P.C. and it was ordered that the petitioners be summoned through warrant of arrest. Against the order of cognizance, the petitioners filed a Revision Petition No. 39/2004 before the Revisional Court i.e.. Additional Sessions Judge, Laxmangarh, District Alwar but the same was dismissed vide order dated 21.4.2006. Both the orders dated 1 1.3.2004 and 21.4.2006 were challenged by the petitioners by way of S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1148/2006 before this Court on the ground that cognizance under section 319. Cr.P.C. cannot be taken by a Court at the fag end of the trial while pronouncing final judgment against the persons who were facing trial before the Court. It was also submitted that according to section 319. Cr.P.C. cognizance against a new person can be taken only when the trial against the present accused is still going on and as in the present case the trial against the present accused was already concluded and final judgment and order was pronounced by the Trial Court. therefore. cognizance taken against the petitioners is bad in law by the reason that they cannot be tried alongwith the present accused, as against them the trial has already been concluded. The petitioners relief upon the case of Siya Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 992 RCC 105 (Raj) . 4. That petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 17.8.2011 relying upon the case of Shashi Kant Singh v. Tarkeshwar Singh and another, 2002 (1) WLC (SC) Cri 586 = 2002 Cri LJ 2806 (SC) . It was found by this Court that a person summoned as accused pursuant to an order passed by a Court in exercise of power conferred by section 319. It was found by this Court that a person summoned as accused pursuant to an order passed by a Court in exercise of power conferred by section 319. Cr.P.C. can be tried for the offence for which he has been summoned ever after the conclusion of the trial wherein such an order of summoning was passed. In these circumstances, the petitioners have moved this petition for recalling the order dated 17.8.2011 whereby their previous petition was dismissed. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the case of Shashikant Singh (supra) is not applicable in the present case as in that case it was not under consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that whether an order of cognizance can be passed against a new person at the time of pronouncing the final judgment of the trial of the accused already facing trial. According to learned Counsel, the question before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was that whether an order passed under section 319, Cr.P.C. becomes without jurisdiction as a result of the subsequent conclusion of the trial against the accused already facing trial. It was contended that in the case of Shashikant Singh (supra) the facts were entirely different as the cognizance under section 319. Cr.P.C. was taken by the Trial Court when the trial was still pending and the order of cognizance was challenged by way of revision petition and in the meanwhile the original trial was concluded. It was contended before the Court that as the original trial itself has come to an end the order of cognizance has become without jurisdiction as the newly added accused now cannot be tried alongwith the accused against whom the trial was previously pending. In such circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that as the order of cognizance was made when the trial was still going on, the order of cognizance cannot become without jurisdiction only by the reason that the original trial has come to an end. It was submitted that in the present case as the order of cognizance was passed at the time of pronouncing of judgment against the accused who were facing trial before the Trial Court, the principal laid down in the above case is not applicable. The learned Counsel further submitted that the pointed involved in the present matter was directly involved in the case of Siya Ram (supra) relied upon by the petitioners. The learned Counsel further submitted that the pointed involved in the present matter was directly involved in the case of Siya Ram (supra) relied upon by the petitioners. It was also submitted that in a case it most part of the prosecution evidence has already been recorded, then the Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance under section 319, Cr.P.C. whereas in the present case the cognizance has been taken while pronouncing final judgment. Learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the case of Michael Machado and another v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2000 (2) Crimes 23 (SC) . 6. I have considered the submission made on behalf of the learned Counsel for the petitioners and also gone through the material made available for my perusal as well as the relevant legal provisions and the relevant case law including the case of Michael Machado (supra). 7. No doubt the facts of the present case are different from the case of the Shashi Kant (supra) which was before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. but so far the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is concerned, I am of the view that it is directly applicable to the present case also and it cannot be said that the case of Shashi Kant Singh (supra) is not applicable to the present case by the reason that the facts are different interpreting the provisions of section 319, Cr.P.C., the Honble Supreme Court in para No. 7 of the judgment has held that:- "Clearly, the proceedings against the person summoned under sub-section (1) are required to be commenced afresh and the witnesses reheard. The entire proceedings have to recommence from the beginning of the trial. All the witnesses have to be examined afresh. Opportunity has to be granted to such a person to cross-examine those witnesses. There has to be de novo trial." 8. It has further been held that the effect of the conclusion of the trial against the accused who was being proceeded with when the order was passed under section 319 (1), Cr.P.C. for proceedings against the newly added person, is to be examined in the light of sub-section (4) of section 319. Cr.P.C. which stipulates a de novo trial in respect of the newly added persons and certain well settled principles of interpretation. Cr.P.C. which stipulates a de novo trial in respect of the newly added persons and certain well settled principles of interpretation. It was further held that it is the duty of the Courts of Justice to try to get at the real intention of the legislature by carefully attending to the whole scope of the statute to be construed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the words "could be tired together with the accused" in section 319 (1) appear to be only directory and this provision cannot be interpreted to mean that since the trial in respect of a person who was before the Court has concluded with the result that the newly added person cannot be tried together with the accused who was before the Court has concluded with the result that the newly added person cannot be tried together with the accused who was before the Court when order under section 319 (1) was passed. the order would become ineffective and inoperative, nullifying the opinion earlier formed by the Court on the basis of evidence before it that the newly added person appears to have committed the offence resulting in an order for his being brought before the Court. 9. I am of the considered view that when the words "could be tired together with the accused" have been intercepted by Hon'ble Supreme Court as only directory, the words "in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence" must also be interpreted as directory. I am of the view that if it is found by the Court that some other person not before the Court is also involved in the offence the Court has power to take cognizance against that person even if the trial or the inquiry has been concluded and the case is at the stage of pronouncement of the judgment. When according to sub-section (4) of section 319, Cr.P.C. in respect of a newly added person the proceedings right from the beginning have to be commenced afresh and the witnesses reheard, it makes no difference whether cognizance against such a person is taken when the trial was still undergoing or the matter was at the fag end of the proceedings for pronouncement of the judgment against the persons who are already facing trial. The power under section 319. The power under section 319. Cr.P.C. is conferred on the Court to ensure that justice is done to the society by bringing to book all those guilty of an offence. One of the aims and purposes of the criminal justice system is to maintain social order. It is necessary in that context to ensure that no one who appears to be guilty escapes a proper trial in relation to that guilt. There is also a duty to render justice to the victim of the offence. It is in recognition of this that the Code has specifically conferred a power on the Court to proceed against others not arrayed as accused. It is a salutary power enabling the discharge of a Court's obligation to the society to bring to book all those guilty of a crime. Exercise of power under section 319 of the Code, in my view, is left to the Court trying the offence on the evidence that comes before it. It Is well settled that the application under section 319, Cr.P.C. can be moved by any person including an accused before the Court and the Court also suo moto an take cognizance under this provision. When this provision has conferred upon a Court a salutary power to bring such person to face trial who was not sent by the police, I am of the view that such person cannot escape from facing trial only on the ground that cognizance was not taken during the course of trial. 10. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the order dated 17.8.2011. so as to recall It. So far as the case of Michael Machado (supra) is concerned, the point involved in the present case was not under consideration in that case. Therefore, it is of no help of the petitioners. 11. Consequently, the application being devoid of any merit is, hereby, dismissed.Application Dismissed. *******