1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER SB Cr Revision Petition No. 137/2010 Sitaram Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan through PP 23.3.2010 Hon'ble Mr Justice MN Bhandari Mr Bharat Yadav - for petitioner Mr Laxman Meena, PP BY THE COURT: By this revision petition a challenge has been made to the order dated 2.2.2010 whereby application moved under section 319 CrPC has been allowed. The only argument urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is that after consideration of evidence the matter was kept for final arguments however arguments could not be taken place. An application under section 319 CrPC was moved by the complainant with a prayer that accused Sitaram, the petitioner herein, may be summoned as an accused. It has come during evidence that accused petitioner was also involved in the commission of offence. Reference of evidence of a witness was 2 given in specific terms and accordingly the court, considering the application, took cognizance against Sitaram-petitioner. It is urged that cognizance has been taken by the court below ignoring the fact that application under section 319 CrPC should not be allowed at the fag end of the trial more so when matter was kept for final hearing. Coming to the merits, it is submitted that no case is made out against petitioner at the time of investigation. Even if statement of PW-2- Madan Lal Gurjar, PW- 4 – Prithviraj and PW-6 Satya Narayan Gurjar are looked into, they have not stated about involvement of petitioner in the occurrence. PW-4 Prithviraj was declared hostile thus he has not supported prosecution case yet his statement was taken into consideration. So far as PW-6 Satya Narayan Gurjar is concerned he has not made any allegation against petitioner except that petitioner run away from the place of occurrence and merely on that basis application under section 319 CrPC could not have been allowed. So far as PW-2 Madan Lal is concerned he has not made any allegation for causing occurrence. Petitioner is having dairy where the milk is brought and the incident took place when one of the persons was taken by the Inspector for sample testing. Petitioner was not involved in the incident. In view of aforesaid, order impugned is payed to be quashed and set aside. 3 Learned PP on the other hand opposed the revision and submits that the order impugned herein has rightly been passed thus this court may not interfere in it. It was however agreed that PW-4 Prithviraj was declared hostile and so far as PW- 6 Satya Narayan Gurjar is concerned he has not stated that the petitioner has caused occurrence rather as per his statement petitioner run away from the place of occurrence. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and scanned the matter carefully. It is a case where application under section 319 CrPC has been allowed at the fag end of the trial rather the order sheets show that the matter was kept for final arguments. Leaving the aforesaid, even if we go into facts, PW-4 has been declared hostile. So far as PW-6 Satya Narayan is concerned he has not made allegation against petitioner so as PW-2 Madan Lal . In view of aforesaid, no case is made out for taking cognizance against petitioner and looking to the fact that matter is now ripe for final arguments, at this stage, acceptance of application under section 319 CrPC will cause delay to the trial against other accused. The view taken by me is otherwise supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Michael Machado and anr versus Central Bureau of Investigation and anr 4 reported as AIR 2000 SC 1127. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and the order dated 2.2.2010 passed by ADJ (FT), Tonk taking cognizance is quashed and set aside. (MN Bhandari) J. bnsharma