ORDER : Ashok Kumar Jain, J. 1. Instant revision petition is preferred aggrieved from order dated 08.08.2019 in Sessions Case No.1/2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Shahpura District Jaipur, whereby learned Trial Court has taken cognizance under Section 319 against the petitioner and summoned him through non-bailable warrant. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner while referring the judgment in case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab: (2014) 3 SCC 92 and Sukhpal Singh Khaira Vs. State of Punjab: (2023) 1 SCC 289 would submitted that at the time of pronouncement of judgment in Sessions Case No. 1/2012, the Trial Court has taken cognizance against the petitioner and same is against the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. He also submitted that the Trial Court after considering the evidence on record has simultaneously passed an order of acquittal in ongoing trial and cognizance against present petitioner. He submitted that at that stage, the trial has concluded therefore, the order of cognizance passed by the Trial Court is contrary to law. He specifically referred the judgment in case of Sukhpal Singh Khaira Vs. State of Punjab (supra) and submitted that if the Trial Court was of the view that there are enough grounds to proceed under Section 319 Cr.P.C., then the order is required to be passed before the pronouncement of original judgment, but in the instant case, the order was passed after the order of acquittal of other accused who faced the trial, therefore, the order of taking cognizance under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is liable to be set aside. He specifically referred the statement of witnesses PW2 to PW-4 and submitted that these were injured or eye-witnesses but from overall testimony of these witnesses, the involvement of present petitioner was not established. He also submitted that initially application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed on 07.05.2012 which was disposed on 19.03.2014 but subsequent to aforesaid another application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed and the Trial Court has disposed of this application along with main judgment on 08.08.2019, therefore, subsequent second application on same ground is prohibited and abuse of process of law. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for respondent-complainant. 4. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for respondent-complainant. 4. Learned counsel for respondent-complainant would submitted that after dismissal of first application more evidence was led before the Trial Court and after overall evidence, a fresh application was filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court but the Trial Court instead of deciding the application on the basis of material available on record had ruled that the application would be considered at the time of final adjudication. He further submitted that it was at the behest of the Trial Court that the application was disposed of with direction to consider the same at the time of final judgment. He also submitted that the Trial Court allowed the application with the same order of acquittal but not after the order of acquittal, thus the judgment in case of Sukhpal Singh Khaira Vs. State of Punjab (supra) is not applicable. 5. Heard learned counsels for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. Also perused the judgments as referred hereinabove. 6. Section 319 Cr.P.C. prescribes for power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence which means during course of inquiry or trial, it appears from 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. 7. A perusal of record indicated that an FIR No. 164/2011 P.S. Viratnagar, District Jaipur Rural was registered by complainant-Madan Lal alleging inter alia involvement of Mahadev, Gorishanker, Jagdish, Moolram, Hanuman, Kailash, wives of Jagdish and Kailash, and mother of Kailash in the incident of assault, which resulted into death of Babu Lal. During investigation, police was of the view that Mahadav Yadav and Gorishanker were not present in the village and, therefore, filed charge-sheet under Section 147, 148, 341, 323 and 302 IPC against Jadgish, Moolchand @ Moolram, Hanuman, Kailash, Pista Devi and Janna Devi. The Trial Court framed the charges against all accused forwarded by the police. After some prosecution evidence an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed on 07.05.2012 and same was dismissed on 19.03.2014 with liberty to re-file after conclusion of prosecution evidence. The Trial Court framed the charges against all accused forwarded by the police. After some prosecution evidence an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed on 07.05.2012 and same was dismissed on 19.03.2014 with liberty to re-file after conclusion of prosecution evidence. Again the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed by the complainant on 06.05.2015 and the Trial Court on 02.05.2017 opined that the disposal of application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. would result in delay in disposal of the main case, therefore, the Trial Court has directed to dispose of the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. along with final judgment of the matter. After this order, the matter was fixed for recording of statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and same were recorded on 12.06.2017. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for final arguments. On 10th and 11th June, 2019, two witnesses PW22-Durga Ram and PW-23 Bhanwar Singh were examined by the prosecution and again additional statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded and ultimately arguments were concluded on 24.07.2019, thereafter, the judgment was pronounced on 08.08.2019. 8. The Trial Court while considering the entire evidence of record has also considered the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in light of earlier order dated 02.05.2017. The Trial Court while acquitting all six accused from charge under Sections 148, 323/149 and 302/149 IPC, had proceeded to take cognizance against the present petitioner accused Mahadev under Section 302 IPC. 9. The timeline of the proceedings of the sessions case before the Trial Court clearly indicated that initially when application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed on 07.05.2012, the same was dismissed on 19.03.2014 on the ground that the trial has not concluded and after trial same can be re-filed. Aforesaid indicate that the Trial Court has not applied its own mind while considering first application dated 07.05.2012 and without application of mind dismissed it on 19.03.2014. Again when another application was moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C., same was kept pending for disposal with main judgment. Thus, the proceedings indicated that prosecution or the complainant were at the mercy of the Trial Court and it was mischief of the Trial Court that was resulted in disposal of application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. along with main judgment dated 08.08.2019. Herein, neither complainant nor prosecution committed any error while moving application on earlier occasion or subsequent occasion. Thus, the proceedings indicated that prosecution or the complainant were at the mercy of the Trial Court and it was mischief of the Trial Court that was resulted in disposal of application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. along with main judgment dated 08.08.2019. Herein, neither complainant nor prosecution committed any error while moving application on earlier occasion or subsequent occasion. Thus, it was act of the Trial Court on the basis of which, the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was finally decided along with final judgment. 10. In case of Sukhpal Singh Khaira Vs. State of Punjab (2023) 1 SCC 289 , a Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the various judgments on Section 319 Cr.P.C. rendered in cases of Manjeet Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2021) 18 SCC 321 : 2021 SCC Online SC 632, Sukhpal Singh Khaira Vs. State of Punjab (2019) 6 SCC 638 : 2 SCC (Cri) 883 Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92 : 2014 2 SCC (Cri) 86, Yakub Abdul Razak Memon Vs. State of Maharashtra (2013) 13 SCC 1 : (2014) 7 SCC (Cri) 1, Rajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. (2007) 7 SCC 378 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 375, Shashikant Singh Vs. Tarkeshwar Singh (2002) 5 SCC 738 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1203 and Rama narang Vs. Ramesh Narang (1995) 2 SCC 513 laid down following guidelines:- (i) If the competent court finds evidence or if application under Section 319 of CrPC is filed regarding involvement of any other person in committing the offence based on evidence recorded at any stage in the trial before passing of the order on acquittal or sentence, it shall pause the trial at that stage. (ii) The Court shall thereupon first decide the need or otherwise to summon the additional accused and pass orders thereon. (iii) If the decision of the court is to exercise the power under Section 319 of CrPC and summon the accused, such summoning order shall be passed before proceeding further with the trial in the main case. (iv) If the summoning order of additional accused is passed, depending on the stage at which it is passed, the Court shall also apply its mind to the fact as to whether such summoned accused is to be tried along with the other accused or separately. (iv) If the summoning order of additional accused is passed, depending on the stage at which it is passed, the Court shall also apply its mind to the fact as to whether such summoned accused is to be tried along with the other accused or separately. (v) If the decision is for joint trial, the fresh trial shall be commenced only after securing the presence of the summoned accused. (vi) If the decision is that the summoned accused can be tried separately, on such order being made, there will be no impediment for the Court to continue and conclude the trial against the accused who were being proceeded with. (vii) If the proceeding paused as in guideline (i) above is in a case where the accused who were tried are to be acquitted and the decision is that the summoned accused can be tried afresh separately, there will be no impediment to pass the judgment of acquittal in the main case. (viii) If the power is not invoked or exercised in the main trial till its conclusion and if there is a split-up (bifurcated) case, the power under Section 319 of CrPC can be invoked or exercised only if there is evidence to that effect, pointing to the involvement of the additional accused to be summoned in the split up (bifurcated) trial. (ix) If, after arguments are heard and the case is reserved for judgment the occasion arises for the Court to invoke and exercise the power under Section 319 of CrPC, the appropriate course for the court is to set it down for re-hearing. (x) On setting it down for re-hearing, the above laid down procedure to decide about summoning; holding of joint trial or otherwise shall be decided and proceeded with accordingly. (xi) Even in such a case, at that stage, if the decision is to summon additional accused and hold a joint trial the trial shall be conducted afresh and de novo proceedings be held. (xii) If, in that circumstance, the decision is to hold a separate trial in case of the summoned accused as indicated earlier; (a) The main case may be decided by pronouncing the conviction and sentence and then proceed afresh against summoned accused. (b) In the case of acquittal the order shall be passed to that effect in the main case and then proceed afresh against summoned accused 11. (b) In the case of acquittal the order shall be passed to that effect in the main case and then proceed afresh against summoned accused 11. In case of Sukhpal Singh Khaira Vs. State of Punjab (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down that connotation “conclusion of trial” cannot be reckoned at the stage till the evidence is recorded, but is to be understood at the stage before pronouncement of the judgment since on judgment being pronounced the trial comes to conclusion, since until such time, the accused is being tried by the Court. 12. Herein the Trial Court itself kept pending the application and reserved the order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and pronounced along with judgment dated 08.08.2019 as an integral part of the judgment but this exercise is a simultaneous exercise and obviously when the order was pronounced for acquittal, the Trial Court had already made it clear that it is appropriate to allow application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. against present petitioner. 13. In view of aforesaid, the judgment in case of Sukhpal Singh Khaira Vs. State of Punjab (supra) is not applicable and the guidelines are not attracted to set aside the order of cognizance against the petitioner. Herein, the complainant or prosecution was not at fault, for pressing the application. Moreover the judgment in case of Sukhpal Singh Khaira (supra) was delivered on 05.12.2022 whereas impugned order was passed on 08.08.2019. 14. A perusal of evidence clearly indicated that from the beginning till trial, a fact is brought on record that present petitioner was main accused, who was driving the Tractor but the Investigating Officer has intentionally protected present petitioner from being arrayed as accused only on the ground he was not available in the village, but ultimately the Trial Court on the basis of evidence on record, came to conclusion that the entire evidence points out a finger on present petitioner, therefore, the Trial Court has not committed any error while taking cognizance under Section 302 IPC against the present petitioner. 15. In view of aforesaid, the instant revision petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 16. As a result, the revision petition filed aggrieved from order of cognizance under Section 319 Cr.P.C. dated 08.08.2019 in Sessions Case No. 1/2012 (arising of FIR No. 164/2011), is hereby dismissed. 17. Misc. applications, if any, stand disposed of.