JUDGMENT : S.K. Sahoo, J. - Heard Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Dillip Kumar Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 2. This revision petition has been filed by Debendra Mandal (informant in the case) with a prayer to set aside the order dated 28.01.2017 passed by the learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Balasore in S.T. Case No. 39/203 of 2015 in rejecting the petition under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. filed by the Addl. Public Prosecutor to implead one Sanjay Kumar Pal as an accused in the case. The said case arises out of Remuna P.S. Case No. 179 of 2013. 3. It seems that the learned Trial Court after perusal of the material available on record came to hold that charge-sheet has been submitted against laxmidhar Pal and Santosh Kumar Pal and ten witnesses have been examined and the statements of the accused persons have also been recorded and therefore, the petition filed by the Addl. Public Prosecutor at the belated stage was of no merit and accordingly rejected the same. 4. Perused the deposition copies of the witnesses filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. On perusal of the statements of the eye witnesses like PW 3, PW 4 and P.W. 5, it appears that they have stated that it is the accused Laxmidhar Pal who set fire to his own hut (chalia) and thereafter, the flame spread to the house of the informant and his house was also damaged by fire. Needless to say that the accused persons Laxmidhar Pal and Santosh Kumar Pal are facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 436/506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. Law is well settled that the power of summoning a person under Section 319 of Cr.P.C as an acused is not to be exercised in a routine and mechanical manner and it is an extraordinary power conferred on the Court to do real justice and the power can be exercised only if compelling reasons exist for proceeding against the person concerned against whom action has not been taken 7. In view of the statements of the aforesaid three witnesses, I am of the view that the learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the petition under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. filed by the Addl. Public Prosecutor. 8. In view of the statements of the aforesaid three witnesses, I am of the view that the learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the petition under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. filed by the Addl. Public Prosecutor. 8. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the revision petition. Accordingly the CRLREV stands dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed