THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.143 of 2010 Date:- 03rd February, 2010 Between: Vavila Ramanaiah And another …Petitioners AND The State of A.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.143 of 2010 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 19.12.2009 in Crl.M.P.No.4659 of 2009 in C.C.No.47 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kovvur, Nellore District. As seen from the contents of the complaint basing upon which, FIR was issued, the names of the petitioners have been mentioned as assailants along with other accused. Subsequently, during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer deleted their names and filed the charge sheet. Subsequently, during the trial also, the State filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to add the petitioners as accused along with the accused already facing the trial in C.C.No.47 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kovvur, Nellore District. On that application, the learned Magistrate passed orders, which reads as follows:- “Heard. As per evidence of P.W.1 in chief, the names of these accused are in FIR and also in 161 Statement of P.W.1. Hence, the petition is allowed.” The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the earlier statements of the witnesses recorded by the police go to show that they did not speak the presence of the petitioners when their statements were recorded and basing on these statements, police deleted the names of the petitioners and filed charge sheet. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been falsely impleaded in this case. It is also submitted that there is delay in giving report to the police. The only point that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the impugned order is liable to set aside. Section 319 of Cr.P.C. reads as follows: 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 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. 2. Where such person is not attending the Court, he maybe arrested to 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 Sub-section (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. Section 319 of Cr.P.C. envisages that the Court may add any person as accused, if it appears to the Court from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which, such person could be tried as accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appear to have committed. Therefore, during the trial, if it appears from the evidence that the proposed accused has also committed the offence along with the accused who are facing the trial, the Court may add them as accused and deal with them for the offences, which he appears to have committed. As seen from the order of the lower Court and also from the 161 Statement of the de-facto complainant (P.W.1), it is clear that the de-facto complainant (P.W.1) had mentioned in her complaint and also in 161 Statement and also in her evidence, the names of the petitioners as assailants along with the other accused. In view of the same, I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Magistrate. It is clear that there are no merits in the revision. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed at the stage of admission. _______________________________ JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR February 03, 2010 Bvv