JUDGMENT By Court:-Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. No one appears for the opposite party No. 2 in spite of service of notice upon her. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.10.1999 passed by Sri N. P. Singh, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in G. R. No. 428 of 1995 arising out of Lalpur P. S. Case No. 25 of 1995, T. R. No. 287 of 2000 whereby, in exercise of the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the Court has summoned the petitioner to face the trial along with the other accused person. 3. It appears from the order dated 21.9.95 taking cognizance and impugned order dated 13.10.1999, that in the F.I.R. the petitioner was named accused, but cognizance was not taken against her, as after investigation police had filed final form showing the petitioner’s name in column 4 . However, it appears that in course of trial two witnesses were examined who have stated that assaults were made by the petitioner also and the Court below in exercise of the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., issued summon to the petitioner for facing the trial along with the other accused. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal, as application under Section 319(I) Cr.P.C. was filed by the prosecution on 06.09.1999 in the Court below, but the said application was rejected by order dated 29.09.1999 and as such the impugned order could not have been passed by the Court below asking the petitioner to face the trial with the other accused person. Learned counsel further submitted that the power u/s 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised only if the person is not an accused in the case, but in the present case the petitioner was made an accused in the F.I.R. and as such, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. It has also been submitted that the matter is of the year 1995 itself and at this belated stage, the petitioner cannot be forced to face the trial. With these submissions, learned counsel has challenged the impugned order passed by the Court below. 5. It has also been submitted that the matter is of the year 1995 itself and at this belated stage, the petitioner cannot be forced to face the trial. With these submissions, learned counsel has challenged the impugned order passed by the Court below. 5. I do not find any force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, inasmuch as, Section 319 Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to summon any person not being an accused, against whom evidence is found during the trial, to face the trial along with other accused already facing the trial. 6. Section 319 Cr.P.C. lays down as follows:- “319.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 the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. ** ****” 6. Thus, from plain reading of Section 319 Cr.P.C., it is apparent that it is not at all necessary for exercise of the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., that it can be exercised only upon application filed by the prosecution, rather the power may very well be exercised even suo motu by the Court, if during the trial the evidence comes against any person to have committed any offence. 7. Even the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner could not be summoned to face the trial as she was already an accused in the F.I.R., is also of no help to the petitioner, as it is apparent from the impugned order itself that the petitioner was not an accused facing the trial before the Court. The law in this connection is well settled in Guria @ Tabassum Tauquir Vs. The law in this connection is well settled in Guria @ Tabassum Tauquir Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 224 , by the Apex Court as follows :- “ 13.On careful reading of Sec. 319 of the Code as well as aforesaid two decisions, it becomes clear that the trial court has undoubted jurisdiction to add any person not being the accused before it to `face the trial along with other accused persons, if the Court is satisfied at any stage of the proceeding on the evidence adduced that the persons who have not been arrayed as accused should face the trial. It is further evident that such person even though had initially been named in the F.I.R. as an accused, but not charge sheeted, can also be added to face the trial. ------------------------ .” (Emphasis supplied). 8. In view of the settled law, I do not find any illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned order worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. There is no merit in this application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.