ORDER : This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 30.11.2018, passed in Sessions Trial No. 205/2010, arising out of Rosera P.S. Case No.173/2008, by which the learned A.D.J., Rosera, allowed the application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr. P.C.’) made by the prosecution and has summoned the petitioner besides another namely, Hari Om Lal, to face the trial together with the accused. 2. The brief facts of this case are that on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant named Phoolkant Chaudhary recorded by the S.H.O. of Resera Police Station, the FIR bearing Rosera P.S. Case No.173/2008 came to be instituted for the offences under Sections 302/34, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act, against 13 named accused persons including this petitioner besides 03 unknown miscreants. In the fardbeyan, the informant has inter alia alleged that his son (now deceased) namely, Vikash Ranjan, was a Press-Reporter in a Daily Newspaper ‘Hindustan’. On 25.11.2018, the relevant date of occurrence, around 5.45 PM, he saw two unknown miscreants firing indiscriminately upon his son, whereupon, the informant ran towards the place of occurrence and saw the miscreants fleeing away from the place of occurrence on a Motorcycle, which was being driven by another miscreant. It is further alleged that in the meanwhile, nearby people assembled there and the informant with their help brought his son to the hospital for treatment, where the doctor found his son dead. The informant in his fardbeyan named as many as 09 persons with whom civil dispute in respect of property and criminal prosecution were pending. The informant further alleged that they had earlier threatened the informant and his son as to face the dire consequences. 3. Apart from, the above mentioned motive attributed behind the alleged murder and the suspicion raised against as many as 09 persons about their involvement in the alleged murder, the informant has also suspected about the involvement of this petitioner and another Hari Om Lal for hatching up a conspiracy in the alleged murder imputing a different motive. The informant alleged that the petitioner and others were involved in illegal trades, which being revealed and got it published in the newspaper by his son, on account of which his son being threatened earlier. The informant alleged that the petitioner and others were involved in illegal trades, which being revealed and got it published in the newspaper by his son, on account of which his son being threatened earlier. The informant has also raised a third kind of suspicion behind the alleged murder. In a criminal case, being instituted at the instance of one Ashok Yadav against a Press-Reporter namely Sri Mangalam, the son of the informant, was one of the bailor of the accused Press Reporter Sri Manglam, therefore, the said Ashok Yadav might have conspired to kill his son. Accordingly, the F.I.R. came to be lodged against all such persons against whom the informant raised suspicion to be involved in the alleged murder of his son. 4. Mrs. Shama Sinha the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after investigation, the police submitted 1st charge sheet bearing No.27/09 dated 14.04.2019 against Krishna Kumar Yadav @ Badka and Santosh Anand Siven, who were not named in the FIR and so far others nine accused persons named in the F.I.R. have not been charge sheeted by the police but the learned A.C.J.M., Rosera, vide order dated 24.08.2009, took cognizance of the offences against as many as 11 accused including 02 charge sheeted besides 09 others against whom, the police have not found the allegations true. Thereupon, the police submitted 1st supplementary charge sheet bearing Charge No.136/09 dated 30.08.2009 against one Syambhar Yadav, whereupon the learned A.C.J.M., Rosera, vide order dated 31.08.2009 found a prima-facie case against the said Syambhar Yadav. The 2nd supplementary charge sheet was filed by the police vide Charge Sheet No.03/2010 dated 14.01.2010 against one Lalit Yadav, accordingly, the learned A.C.J.M., Rosera, found a prima-facie case against him also. 5. In the meantime, the informant of this case filed a criminal writ bearing Cr. W.J.C. No. 939/2010, seeking direction upon the police for arrest of the accused persons named in the F.I.R. The said criminal writ came to be disposed of vide order dated 01.03.2011 with a direction to the police as to complete the investigation, expeditiously without unnecessary delay. Whereupon, the police submitted last supplementary charge sheet vide No.61/12 dated 31.03.2012 against Mohan Yadav and Bablu Singh. While submitting the charge-sheet vide No. 61/12 dated 31.03.2012, the police submitted Final Form against the petitioner and another Hari Om Lal showing ‘want of Evident’. Whereupon, the police submitted last supplementary charge sheet vide No.61/12 dated 31.03.2012 against Mohan Yadav and Bablu Singh. While submitting the charge-sheet vide No. 61/12 dated 31.03.2012, the police submitted Final Form against the petitioner and another Hari Om Lal showing ‘want of Evident’. Thus, the police completed the investigation of Rosera P.S. Case No.173/2008. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that pursuant to the Charge Sheet No. 61/12 dated 31.03.2012, the learned A.C.J.M., Rosera, vide order dated 24.05.2012, accepted the police report and discharged the petitioner herein besides another namely Hari Om Lal from the proceedings of the case. The cases being committed to the Court of Sessions in different phases against the different set of accused, on account of phase wise submission of charge sheet and supplementary charge sheets on different dates. On the prayer made by the prosecution, all the cases having different sessions trial numbers came to be amalgamated, thereupon, vide order dated 14.01.2013 charges were framed against 15 accused persons. Thereafter, all the witnesses named in the charge sheets were examined including the official witnesses i.e. Doctor and I.O. The prosecution further moved an application for examination of such 07 witnesses, who were not even named in the charge sheets. The learned trial court vide order dated 31.08.2017, allowed the application to the extent of permitting the prosecution for examination of three more witnesses only. The learned counsel for the petitioner emphasized that such witnesses were brought only for the purposes of filling up the lacuna of the prosecution case. 7. The prosecution filed an application under the provisions of 319 of the Cr. P.C., on 04.01.2018 for summoning the petitioner and another Hari Om Lal for facing the trial. It was contended that while filing such application the prosecution referred and relied upon the evidences of PW-1 (wife of the deceased), PW-5 Hemant Kumar Choudhary and PW-7 (the informant). 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner thus submitted that the learned court below without considering the scope of Section 319 of the Cr. It was contended that while filing such application the prosecution referred and relied upon the evidences of PW-1 (wife of the deceased), PW-5 Hemant Kumar Choudhary and PW-7 (the informant). 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner thus submitted that the learned court below without considering the scope of Section 319 of the Cr. P.C. and the requirement of sufficiency of materials being available on the record, allowed the application vide order dated 30.11.2018 taking notice of the observations made by this Hon’ble Court while rejecting the anticipatory bail of the petitioner moved earlier, and taking into consideration such testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and which were exactly similar to the statements made by them earlier before the police in course of investigation of the case but after investigation the police found such statements not credible and submitted the final form against the petitioner and another showing ‘want of evidence’ therefore, the order impugned dated 30.11.2018, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 9. The petition filed on behalf of the prosecution under Section 319 of the Cr. P.C. has been brought on record vide Annexure-16. In the said petition, the observations made by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while rejecting the anticipatory bail application vide order dated 02.04.2010, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 32174/2009 has been referred. The said order dated 02.04.2010 as referred above, is also on record vide Annexure- 7. Apart from the said observations of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court the prosecution while making application under Section 319 of the Cr. P.C., has referred the testimonies of P.W-1 wife of the deceased PW-1, P.W-5 namely Hemant Kumar Choudhary and P.W-7 the informant of this case. The prosecution further relied upon the personal diary of the deceased Vikash Ranjan, which being produced in the court and marked as Ext No.3. 10. Before considering the merit of the application and the scope of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., in the facts of the present case, it is apt to discuss the testimonies of the witnesses i.e., PW-1, PW-5 and PW-7, which find reference in the application dated 04.01.2018, as also, in the order impugned dated 30.11.2018. 11. 10. Before considering the merit of the application and the scope of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., in the facts of the present case, it is apt to discuss the testimonies of the witnesses i.e., PW-1, PW-5 and PW-7, which find reference in the application dated 04.01.2018, as also, in the order impugned dated 30.11.2018. 11. The wife of the deceased, Kalpana Ranjan (PW-1) in paragraph no.4 of her examination in-chief has stated that her husband had made news reporting against the illegal traders, therefore, the petitioner and another Hari Om Lal had earlier threatened her husband. The witness has further named all such accused persons with whom her family having some sort of litigating and she further stated that all such persons hatching up a conspiracy might have caused murder of her husband. 12. PW-7 who is the informant of this case has stated in paragraph 7 of his examination in-chief that his deceased son had revealed about the illegal trading of medicines in Rosera Market, by the Chemists. This witness has further stated that being annoyed by such news-reports, some illegal drug-traders including the petitioner and another Hari Om Lal hatched up a conspiracy to kill his son and for the said purpose, advance of Rs. 03 Lakh was also made available by them. In paragraph 5 of his deposition, this witness has also stated that there has been a partition suit pending among the co-sharers of the informant and the co-sharers had been putting pressure upon his son for withdrawal of the case. He has further stated that his co-sharers (Pattidar) conspired together and killed his son. 13. So far the P.W. 5 is concerned, he has made a general statement, which is not of much relevance towards the issue involved herein. 14. Per contra, learned A.P.P. submitted that Section 319 of the Cr. P.C. is an enabling provision for the trial court to do justice by punishing the culprit. In the present case, it appears from the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 7 that the petitioner having been involved in the murder of the informant’s son. Therefore, the learned court below has rightly issued summons against the petitioner. 15. Now, I may take note of Section 319 of the Cr. P.C. which reads thus: “319. In the present case, it appears from the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 7 that the petitioner having been involved in the murder of the informant’s son. Therefore, the learned court below has rightly issued summons against the petitioner. 15. Now, I may take note of Section 319 of the Cr. P.C. which reads thus: “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 had 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. (3) Any person attending the Court although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed. (4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under subsection (1) then- (a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and the witnesses re-heard; (b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.” 16. In the Case of Michael Machado V. CBI reported in AIR 2000 SC 1127 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held thus :- “14. The Court while deciding whether to invoke the power under section 319 of the Code, must address itself about the other constraints imposed by the first limb of sub-section (4), that proceedings in respect of newly added persons shall be commenced afresh and the witnesses re-examined. The whole proceedings must be recommenced from the beginning of the trial, summon the witnesses once again and examine them and cross-examine them in order to reach the stage where it had reached earlier. If the witnesses already examined are quite a large in number the Court must seriously consider whether the objects sought to be achieved by such exercise is worth wasting the whole labour already undertaken. If the witnesses already examined are quite a large in number the Court must seriously consider whether the objects sought to be achieved by such exercise is worth wasting the whole labour already undertaken. Unless the Court is hopeful that there is reasonable prospect of the case as against the newly brought accused ending in conviction of the offence concerned we would say that the Court should refrain from adopting such a course of action.” 17. In the Case of Hardip Singh V. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92 , the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held thus :- “90. In Mohd. Shafi (Supra), this Court held that it is evident that before a court exercises its discretionary jurisdiction in terms of Section 319 Cr. P.C., it must arrive at a satisfaction that there exists a possibility that the accused so summoned in all likelihood would be convicted. 97. In Palanisamy Gounder & Anr. v. State, represented by Inspector of Police, (2005) 12 SCC 327 , this Court deprecated the practice of invoking the power under Section 319 Cr. P.C. just to conduct a fishing inquiry, as in that case, the trial court exercised that power just to find out the real truth, though there was no valid ground to proceed against the person summoned by the court. 98. Power under Section 319 Cr. P.C. is a discretionary and an extra-ordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be 6 Page 66 exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner. 99. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court not necessarily tested on the anvil of Cross-Examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. 99. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court not necessarily tested on the anvil of Cross-Examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 Cr. P.C. In Section 319 Cr. P.C. the purpose of providing if ‘it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence’ is clear from the words “for which such person could be tried together with the accused.” The words used are not ‘for which such person could be convicted’. There is, therefore, no scope for the Court acting under Section 319 Cr. P.C. to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused. 104. However, there is a great difference with regard to a person who has been discharged. A person who has been discharged stands on a different footing than a person who was never subjected to investigation or if subjected to, but not charge-sheeted. Such a person has stood the stage of inquiry before the court and upon judicial examination of the material collected during investigation; the court had come to the conclusion that there is not even a prima facie case to proceed against such person. Generally, the stage of evidence in trial is merely proving the material collected during investigation and therefore, there is not much change as regards the material existing against the person so discharged. Therefore, there must exist compelling circumstances to exercise such power. The Court should keep in mind that the witness when giving evidence against the person so discharged, is not doing so merely to seek revenge or is naming him at the behest of someone or for such other extraneous considerations. The court has to be circumspect in treating such evidence and try to separate the chaff from the grain. The Court should keep in mind that the witness when giving evidence against the person so discharged, is not doing so merely to seek revenge or is naming him at the behest of someone or for such other extraneous considerations. The court has to be circumspect in treating such evidence and try to separate the chaff from the grain. If after such careful examination of the evidence, the court is of the opinion that there does exist evidence to proceed against the person so discharged, it may take steps but only in accordance with Section 398 Cr. P.C. without resorting to the provision of Section 319 Cr. P.C. directly. 109. Thus, it is evident that power under Section 319 Cr. P.C. can be exercised against a person not subjected to investigation, or a person placed in the Column 2 of the Charge- Sheet and against whom cognizance had not been taken, or a person who has been discharged. However, concerning a person who has been discharged, proceedings can be commenced against him directly under Section 319 Cr. P.C. without taking recourse to provisions of Section 300(5) read with Section 398 Cr. P.C. We accordingly sum up our conclusions as follows: Question Nos.1 & III. Q.I What is the stage at which power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised? AND Q.III Whether the word "evidence" used in Section 319(1) Cr. P.C. has been used in a comprehensive sense and includes the evidence collected during investigation or the word "evidence" is limited to the evidence recorded during trial? A. In Dharam Pal's case, the Constitution Bench has already held that after committal, cognizance of an offence can be taken against a person not named as an accused but against whom materials are available from the papers filed by the police after completion of investigation. Such cognizance can be taken under Section 193 Cr. P.C. and the Sessions Judge need not wait till 'evidence' under Section 319 Cr. P.C. becomes available for summoning an additional accused. Section 319 Cr. P.C., significantly, uses two expressions that have to be taken note of i.e. (1) Inquiry (2) Trial. As a trial commences after framing of charge, an inquiry can only be understood to be a pre-trial inquiry. Inquiries under Sections 200, 201, 202 Cr. P.C.; and under Section 398 Cr. P.C. are species of the inquiry contemplated by Section 319 Cr. P.C., significantly, uses two expressions that have to be taken note of i.e. (1) Inquiry (2) Trial. As a trial commences after framing of charge, an inquiry can only be understood to be a pre-trial inquiry. Inquiries under Sections 200, 201, 202 Cr. P.C.; and under Section 398 Cr. P.C. are species of the inquiry contemplated by Section 319 Cr. P.C. Materials coming before the Court in course of such enquiries can be used for corroboration of the evidence recorded in the court after the trial commences, for the exercise of power under Section 319 Cr. P.C., and also to add an accused whose name has been shown in Column 2 of the charge sheet. In view of the above position the word 'evidence' in Section 319 Cr. P.C. has to be broadly understood and not literally i.e. as evidence brought during a trial. Question No. II. Whether the word "evidence" used in Section 319(1) Cr. P.C. could only mean evidence tested by cross-examination or the court can exercise the power under the said provision even on the basis of the statement made in the examination-in-chief of the witness concerned? A. Considering the fact that under Section 319 Cr. P.C. a person against whom material is disclosed is only summoned to face the trial and in such an event under Section 319(4) Cr. P.C. the proceeding against such person is to commence from the stage of taking of cognizance, the Court need not wait for the evidence against the accused proposed to be summoned to be tested by cross-examination. Question No. IV Q.IV What is the nature of the satisfaction required to invoke the power under Section 319 Cr. P.C. to arraign an accused? Whether the power under Section 319 (1) Cr. P.C. can be exercised only if the court is satisfied that the accused summoned will in all likelihood be convicted? A. Though under Section 319 (4) (b) Cr. P.C. the accused subsequently impleaded is to be treated as if he had been an accused when the Court initially took cognizance of the offence, the degree of satisfaction that will be required for summoning a person under Section 319 Cr. P.C. would be the same as for framing a charge. A. Though under Section 319 (4) (b) Cr. P.C. the accused subsequently impleaded is to be treated as if he had been an accused when the Court initially took cognizance of the offence, the degree of satisfaction that will be required for summoning a person under Section 319 Cr. P.C. would be the same as for framing a charge. The difference in the degree of satisfaction for summoning the original accused and a subsequent accused is on account of the fact that the trial may have already commenced against the original accused and it is in the course of such trial that materials are disclosed against the newly summoned accused. Fresh summoning of an accused will result in delay of the trial - therefore the degree of satisfaction for summoning the accused (original and subsequent) has to be different. Question No. V Q.V Does the power under Section 319 Cr. P.C. extend to persons not named in the FIR or named in the FIR but not charge sheeted or who have been discharged? A. A person not named in the FIR or a person though named in the FIR but has not been charge sheeted or a person who has been discharged can be summoned under Section 319 Cr. P.C. provided from the evidence it appears that such person can be tried along with the accused already facing trial. However, in so far as an accused who has been discharged is concerned the requirement of Sections 300 and 398 Cr. P.C. has to be complied with before he can be summoned afresh.” 18. In the Case of Brijendra Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan (2017) 7 SCC 706 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held thus :- “11. In Hardeep Singh’s case, the Constitution Bench has also settled the controversy on the issue as to whether the word ‘evidence’ used in Section 319 (1) Code of Criminal Procedure has been used in a comprehensive sense and indicates the evidence collected during investigation or the word ‘evidence’ is limited to the evidence recorded during trial. It is held that it is that material, after cognizance is taken by the Court, that is available to it while making an inquiry into or trying an offence, which the court can utilize or take into consideration for supporting reasons to summon any person on the basis of evidence adduced before the Court. It is held that it is that material, after cognizance is taken by the Court, that is available to it while making an inquiry into or trying an offence, which the court can utilize or take into consideration for supporting reasons to summon any person on the basis of evidence adduced before the Court. The word ‘evidence’ has to be understood in its wider sense, both at the stage of trial and even at the stage of inquiry. It means that the power to proceed against any person after summoning him can be exercised on the basis of any such material as brought forth before it. At the same time, this Court cautioned that the duty and obligation of the Court becomes more onerous to invoke such powers consciously on such material after evidence has been led during trial. The Court also clarified that ‘evidence’ Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure could even be exanimation-inchief and the Court is not required to wait till such evidence is tested on cross-examination, as it is the satisfaction of the Court which can be gathered from the reasons recorded by the Court in respect of complicity of some other person(s) not facing trial in the offence. 12. The moot question, however, is the degree of satisfaction that is required for invoking the powers Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure and the related question is as to in what situations this power should be exercised in respect of a person named in the FIR but not charge-sheeted. These two aspects were also specifically dealt with by the Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh’s Case and answered in the following manner: 95. At the time of taking cognizance, the Court has to see whether a prima facie case is made out to proceed against the accused. Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, though the test of prima facie case is the same, the degree of satisfaction that is required is much stricter. At the time of taking cognizance, the Court has to see whether a prima facie case is made out to proceed against the accused. Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, though the test of prima facie case is the same, the degree of satisfaction that is required is much stricter. A two- Judge Bench of this Court in Vikas V. State of Rajasthan [(2014) 3SCC 321], held that on the objective satisfaction of the Court a person may be “arrested” or “summoned”, as the circumstances of the case may require, if it appears from the evidence that any such person not being the Accused has committed an offence for which such person could be tried together with the already arraigned Accused Persons. 105. Power Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure is a discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the Court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner. 106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the Court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross-examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the Court should refrain from exercising power Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure. In Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure the purpose of providing if “it appears from the evidence that any person not being the Accused has committed any offence” is clear from the words “for which such person could be tried together with the accused”. The words used are not “for which such person could be convicted”. In Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure the purpose of providing if “it appears from the evidence that any person not being the Accused has committed any offence” is clear from the words “for which such person could be tried together with the accused”. The words used are not “for which such person could be convicted”. There is, therefore, no scope for the court acting Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure to form any opinion as to the guilty of the accused.” 19. In view of the provisions envisaged under Section 319 of the Cr. P.C., and the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as referred above, I am of the considered opinion that from the evidences collected during course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it must appear to the Court that someone, who being not arraigned as an accused in the case had committed an offence for which he could be tried together with the accused. If the Court entertains only doubt about the involvement of another person in the offence from the evidence collected during trial, in that case it would not be appropriate to proceed against such person in terms of Section 319 of the Cr. P.C. Only where strong and cogent evidence are available against a person, such power should be exercised. It is not to be exercised in a casual or a cavalier manner. 20. Now, coming to the order impugned dated 30.11.2018, passed by the learned court below, I find no such reason discussed in the order for allowing the application made by the prosecution under Section 319 of the Cr. P.C. The learned court below has not even recorded any satisfaction that evidences on record make out a such prima facie case of the offences against the petitioner, which requires his trial together with the accused at the stage of 319 of the Cr. P.C. The learned court below has not even recorded any satisfaction that evidences on record make out a such prima facie case of the offences against the petitioner, which requires his trial together with the accused at the stage of 319 of the Cr. P.C. The Court has to consider substance of the evidence which has come before it and to apply the test as laid down by the Constitution Bench in the Case of Hardip Singh (Supra) i.e. “more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted would lead to conviction.” Although, the learned trial court has not applied the test laid down by the Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh’ s case (supra) nor has given any cogent reasons for exercise of power under Section 319 of the Cr. P.C. Therefore, the order impugned dated 30.11.2018, warrants interference and accordingly, set-aside. 22. In the result, the revision application is allowed. The learned trial court shall proceed with the trial in accordance with law in Sessions Trial No. 205 of 2010.