IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10115 of 2009 RAM NIWAS RAI, SON OF LATE SACHIDANAND RAI, VILLAGE KEOTALIYA, P.S. DARAULI, DISTRICT SIWAN. ----- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SHEONATH RAI, SON OF PRABHUNATH RAI, VILLAGE KEOTALIYA, P.S. DARAULI, DISTRICT SIWAN. ----- OPPOSITE PARTIES For the petitioner:- Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Senior Advocate Mr. Laxmi Kant Sharma, Advocate Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. ----------- 2 28.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 5.2.2009 passed under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner was named in the First Information Report and was subsequently exonerated at the stage of submission of the charge sheet which was accepted by the Court. During the trial, three of the witnesses have stated in their chief that the petitioner was also present at the time of occurrence and one of them has deposed that the petitioner also indulged in firing. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court ought not to have exercised its power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as one of the witnesses namely Keshav Shahi is trying to improve the prosecution version by making a statement that the petitioner had indulged in firing although this allegation does not find place in the First Information Report. On these grounds it is submitted that the power has been wrongly exercised by the Court under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2 This Court cannot pass comments with respect to the quality of the evidence brought on record during the trial. However, the power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be exercised in the facts of a particular case and when the Court finds that the names of certain persons have come up subsequently during the trial, it would be justified in summoning the accused under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure I do not see any anomaly in the reasoning given by the Court below and as such this application is dismissed. It goes without saying that all the grounds taken by the petitioner in the present application can be argued at the appropriate stage. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)