1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Dharam Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1460/2009) Date of Order :- 05th October, 2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr.Yogesh Singhal, for the petitioners. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 11.09.2009 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Head Quarter Bharatpur, Bayana whereby the learned Judge has allowed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and has taken cognizance against the present accused-petitioners. Mr. Yogesh Singhal, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has raised the following contentions before this Court : firstly, power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a vast one. Therefore, it should be exercised sparingly. Secondly, the said power should be invoked only when sufficient evidence exists on record for convicting the persons. However, in the present case, there is insufficient evidence for recording a conviction. Thirdly, while the trial court has taken cognizance against the present accused-petitioners, it has dismissed the application against other persons who were named by other injured witnesses. Thus, a hostile discrimination has been carried out against the present accused-petitioners. Lastly, due to inclusion of the present accused-petitioners, the charges which were framed by the trial court at the initial stage, stand changed. 2 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order. It is, certainly, a settled position of law that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a vast power and should be exercised sparingly. Whether the evidence should be sufficient as to record a conviction or not, is a issue presently pending before a Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said issue has been referred to a Larger Bench in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. in a case, Criminal Appeal No.1750/2008 decided on 07.11.2008. At the time of taking cognizance, the trial court is concerned only with the existence of a prima facie case. If there is ample evidence, in the form of testimonies recorded under oath, to make out a prima facie case against those persons who were not arrayed as accused-petitioners, then the trial court would be justified in invoking its power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the learned trial court has relied upon the testimony of the complainant, Smt. Shushila. She has named the present accused- petitioners as those who had assaulted her. Thus, ample evidence does exist to make out a prima facie case against the present accused-petitioners. The present accused-petitioners cannot be aggrieved by the fact that others, who have been named by other injured witnesses, have been left out. Such a grievance can only exist qua the other injured witnesses, or can be on behalf of the prosecution. Therefore, the first contention raised by the learned counsel is devoid of any merit. 3 According to the learned counsel, the inclusion of present accused-petitioners has changed the nature of charges which were framed by the trial court at the beginning of the trial. However, there is no bar in law that the learned trial court cannot modify the charges, during the course of trial. In fact, ample power has been given to the trial court to modify the charges, in accordance with the evidence that is produced by the prosecution, during the course of trial. Therefore, the second contention raised by the learned counsel is also unsustainable. Since a prima facie case does exist against the present accused-petitioners, the learned trial court was legally justified in taking cognizance against them. Hence, there is neither any perversity, nor any illegality in the impugned order. In this view of the matter, the revision petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki-