1 S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No.455/2006 Ram Sukh & Ors. vs The State of Rajasthan & DATE OF ORDER : 4.1.2007 HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI G.S. SARRAF Shri Sandeep Mehta, for the petitioner. Shri S.N. Tiwari, Public Prosecutor. <><><> This is a revision petition against the order of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajgarh, District Churu dated 22.3.206 whereby under Section 319 Cr. P.C. cognizance has been taken against the petitioner Ram Sukh under Section 336 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and against the petitioners Mani Ram, Rajendra and Dharm Pal under Section 336 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. Heard Shri Sandeep Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.N. Tiwari, learned Public Prosecutor. The basic requirement of invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C. is that it should appear to the Court from the evidence collected during trial or in the inquiry that some other person, who is not arraigned as an accused in that case, has committed an offence for which that person could be tried together with the accused already arraigned. It is not enough that the Court entertained some doubt, from the evidence, about the involvement of 2 another person in the offence, but the Court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence collected that the other person has committed an offence and that the other person could as well be tried alongwith the arraigned accused. Keeping this in mind it is to be seen whether the action of the Magistrate in joining the petitioners as additional accused persons is legally sustainable. Sampat Singh PW-1, Amar Singh PW-2 and Banwari PW-3 in their statement before the court have stated that the petitioner Ram Sukh fired while the three petitioners Mani, Ram, Rajendra and Dharm Pal made exhortations to kill the enemy. Looking to the statements of Sampat Singh PW-1, Amar Singh PW-2 and Banwari PW-3, I am of the opinion that it would be improper to interfere with exercise of jurisdiction by the Magistrate under Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. I do not think that this is a fit case where this Court should interfere with the discretion and power of the learned Magistrate as contained in Section 319 (1) Cr.P.C. Consequently, the revision petition stands dismissed. (G.S. SARRAF), J. cpgoyal/-