JUDGMENT 1. - Documents filed in Court are taken on record. 2. The present revision petition has been filed to assail the order dated 14.08.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Jalore in Sessions Case No. 62/2005 (25/05) titled State of Rajasthan v. Ratan Singh & Others whereby the Court exercising the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. had summoned the petitioner to stand trial for offences under Sections 148, 323, 323/149, 325/149, 324, 324/149, 307, 307/149 and 308, 308/149 IPC. 3. Shri Vijay Purohit, counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the order summoning the accused to stand trial. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if the FIR is read, no specific role has been assigned to the petitioner. It is further submitted that complainant injured Kesaji appearing as P.W. 1 in cross-examination has stated that he remember author of injuries qua ⅔ injuries, regarding rest of the injuries he cannot describe the author of the injuries. 4. I have read the FIR and examination-in-chief of the complainant Kesaji P.W. 1. In the FIR and examination-in chief, complainant has specifically stated that the petitioners were present at the place of occurrence and they had participated in the occurrence by causing injuries. Petitioners have been summoned to stand trial for offences under Section 148 IPC constituting unlawful assembly and also Section 149 IPC for sharing common object of the unlawful assembly. Whether complainant had received injuries at the hands of all the accused or few accused had participated in the occurrence require appreciation of evidence. So far invocation of Section 319 Cr.P.C. is concerned, the Court has only to take into consideration whether there are reasonable chances of conviction or not. Therefore the standards which are applied at the final stage cannot be taken into consideration at the time of invocation Section 319 Cr.P.C. 5. From perusal of the FIR, testimony of P.W. 1 Kesaji and the impugned order, it can be safely said that the Court below has exercised the discretion validly. The revisional Court will not cause interference only for the reason that in cross-examination author of specific injury has not been mentioned. That being so, this Court would be hesitant to cause interference and hence, the present revision petition is dismissed. 6. The revisional Court will not cause interference only for the reason that in cross-examination author of specific injury has not been mentioned. That being so, this Court would be hesitant to cause interference and hence, the present revision petition is dismissed. 6. However as a matter of abundant caution, it is observed that nothing said in this order shall be construed as final expression on the merits of the case.Petition dismissed. *******