JUDGMENT 1. - During the trial of Sessions Case No. 17/2008 pending before Special Judge SC/ST Cases, Merta, an application was filed by the complainant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by which complainant wanted that the trial Court should take cognizance against sixteen more persons because police had filed charge-sheet against only thirteen accused persons in regular criminal Court and against three persons in Juvenile Court, Nagaur. Left over accused persons against him the charge-sheet was not filed by police had been named in the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. as follows; Dina Ram, Jimna Ram, Shiv Lal, Amra Ram, Mst. Chainki, Mst. Kalki, Mst. Poonki, Mst. Bajudi, Goga Ram, Mahendra, Mohan Ram, Nema Ram, Sukha Ram, Pukh Raj, Hari Ram and Giga Ram. 2. I have heard the arguments and I have perused the record of the case. Lower Court had decided an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on 31.1.2011 and by that time twenty one witnesses had already been examined by the lower Court in trial of other thirteen accused persons. Lower Court had thought it fit that cognizance should not be taken against the aforementioned sixteen other accused persons because it is settled law that at late stage such cognizance under Section 319 Cr.P.C. should not be taken if there are almost no chances of conviction of persons to be proceeded against. Here following rulings may be referred. (1) (2000) 3 SCC 262 , Michael Machdeo v. C.B.I, (2) 2003(3) Crimes 397 (399) Raj., Khet Ram v. State of Raj. 3. Now the trial Court has already pronounced the judgment against thirteen accused persons so now taking cognizance against left over sixteen-accused persons may be an abuse of process and so also this Court thinks it fit not to take cognizance against these left over persons. 4. No doubt it is a settled law that if cognizance has been taken against the persons whose name did not appear in the charge sheet and after cognizance even if the trial of persons who was charge-sheeted has already been concluded, even then trial may continue against the persons against whom cognizance has been taken on a later date because the mandate of the law is that fresh trial is mandatory whereas the principle that newly added accused could be tried together with the other accused is directory. Thus it is also settled position (hat the conclusion of the trial against remaining thirteen accused will not be a bar against cognizance under Section 319 Cr.P.C. against the remaining accused persons. Following rulings may be referred here in support of my view; (1) 2002 AIR SCW 2079, Shashikant Sitigli v. Tarkeshwar Singh & Anr. (2) 2007 Cri.L.J. 4281 SC, Rajindra Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr., (3) AIR 2006 Supreme Court 1892, Lok Ram v. Nihal Singh & Anr., (4) 2001 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 707, Atar Khan & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan. 5. Thus, this revision petition under Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. of complainant Prem Jat is hereby dismissed but a concession is hereby given to the complainant that he may raise arguments mentioned in this petition again when the appeal against the judgment dated 10.6.2011 of the Sessions Case No. 17/2008 will be heard on merits.Petition dismissed. *******